The scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models…”we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again” March 3, 2012Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: Australia Floods, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, climate change, climate change lies, climate fail, Climate Models, CSIRO, drought breaks, failed climate predictions, global warming, Global Warming Lies, Queensland floods, Tim Flannery failed predictions
The below extract is from the The Age on August 30, 2009, regarding a three-year, $7 million collaboration between the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO
It’s not drought, it’s climate change, say scientists
August 30, 2009
…But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models.
When they ran simulations with only the ”natural” influences on temperature, such as changing levels of solar activity, they found there was no intensification of the subtropical ridge and no decline in rainfall.
But when they added human influences, such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone depletion, the models mimicked what has occurred in south-east Australia – the high pressure systems strengthened, causing a significant drop in rainfall.
”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.
”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”…
Read full article here
Just a little over a year later (December 2010), the devastating Queensland floods hit and more recently (March 2012), parts of Victoria, the Northern Territory and almost three quarters of NSW are affected by floods.
Now that’s what you call a wash-out of a prediction and yet they say they can predict the climate in 100 years time!
Above, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam floodgate release in 2010.
Above, in 2007, Tim Flannery, who is currently serving as Australia’s taxpayer funded Climate Commissioner said, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”
Above, Sydney’s Warragamba Dam on the verge of spilling as “Rain records stretching back to 1886 are set to be broken”
Above, residents in northern New South Wales and Queensland’s southern inland are preparing for record floods as thousands are forced to evacuate their homes.
Why Climate Models Fail December 29, 2008Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: climate change, Climate Models, global warming
1 comment so far
Why Climate Models Fail
By Ken Gregory
The IPCC used the CO2 forcing of 3.71 W/m2. They multiply this by a feedback factor of 3.08, which boosts the total forcing due to CO2 to 11.4 W/m2. Monckton’s summary shows that 76% of this feedback factor is due to clouds and water vapour (with lapse rate change). But both of these feedbacks are the wrong sign! Roy Spencer shows that clouds cause a negative feedback, not positive, based on satellite data. He shows that modeler have interpreted cloud changes as a feedback, instead of a cause of temperature change. This reversal of cause and effect makes cloud seem like a positive feedback, when they actually cause a negative feedback. But more importantly, the IPCC assumes that water vapour causes the largest positive feedback, but the Hartcode simulation runs using the NOAA water humidity data shows that water vapour causes a large negative feedback. You have seen my graph of relative humidity before which is linked here.
All climate models assume that relative humidity remains approximately constant with global warming. So if CO2 initially causes a small warming, this causes an increase in water content in the models, resulting is a large positive feedback But the data shows a 21% drop of relative humidity at about 9 km altitude, just where the predicted hot spot is missing, directly contradicting the models.
The Hartcode simulation makes no assumptions of how the greenhouse effect works, or how much temperatures changes with optical depth changes. (Optical depth is related the surface radiation flux Su by Su = OLR(1+tau +exp(-tau))/2, where tau = optical depth). Here is a graph showing the optical depth changes over the last 60 years (water vapour and CO2), and the change due to CO2 only.
Look at the pink curve, CO2 only. This is with water vapour held constant and CO2 only changing. The trend (orange line) shows an increase of 1.152 10-4 X 60 years = +0.0069, or about +0.37% in 60 years, confirming our belief the CO2 has a tiny direct effect on temperature.
The blue curve shows the optical depth including CO2 and water vapour. Note that water vapour varies much more that CO2. But instead of causing a huge positive feedback, water caused a strong negative feedback, and reduced the optical depth trend (green line) to 2.58 10-5 X 60 years = + 0.0015, or about 0.083% in 60 years. This means that water vapour has offset 78% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 change over the last 60 years. This is very significant! Note also that there has been a dramatic drop in water vapour at all altitudes in 2008, which is not included in the above calculations. I do recognize that the early NOAA data might be less accurate than more recent data, but this is what the data shows.
This data supports Miskowski’s theory of the greenhouse effect. Miskolcki shows the standard theory uses inappropriate boundary conditions. When real boundary conditions are used, he shows that the atmosphere maintains a saturated greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. I encourage you to review this article, based on a draft by Dr. Noor van Andel. In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models fail: 1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive feedback, 2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback. See PDF here.
The story of the Witchdoctor and his Climate Predictions October 21, 2008Posted by honestclimate in humour.
Tags: al gore, climate change, Climate Models, climate prediction, funny, Global Cooling, global warming, humor, humour, ice age, james hansen, jokes, stephen schneider, witchdoctor
1 comment so far
The story of the Witchdoctor and his Climate Predictions
By the blogowner, honestclimate, October 21, 2008
A long time ago in a far away place, long before the advent of the internet and telephones, the Witchdoctor of the tribe was not only responsible for curing medical ailments, but also for climate prediction.
Under the pretence of “throwing the bones” the Witchdoctor would claim to know if it would be a sunny day or if a storm would be on its way. He had a 100% track record with his climate predictions, but it had nothing to do with throwing the bones. The modus operandi of the Witchdoctor was to run 20km every morning to the top of the mountain to see if there were dark clouds or clear sky. If dark clouds were brewing he would run back to the village to “throw the bones” and proclaim that a storm was coming.
The tribe and chief praised him daily for his accurate predictions and the Witchdoctor loved the attention he was getting.
The Vice Chief was a very bitter man after losing to the Chief by a mere one vote in the tribal election. But the Vice Chief had a good eye for making money. When the Witchdoctor proclaimed that a storm was coming, the Vice Chief insisted everyone from the tribe bring him a gift, to “appease the weather gods”. This made the Vice Chief a very wealthy man.
One day whilst on his way back from the mountain, the Witchdoctor was almost home when he tripped over a rock and broke both his legs. Unable to run up the mountain to check the cloud cover, the Witchdoctor kept getting his predictions wrong. The tribes people started getting very annoyed. The Witchdoctor kept vehemently stating that a big storm was coming and that it would be the biggest storm they’d ever see and that it would kill many people. This did not happen. The tribes people were growing more and more tired of the catastrophic storm predictions, whilst the sky remained clear for a long time. Eventually they burnt the Witchdoctor at the stake.
Fast forward a couple of hundred years and today we no longer use the term Witchdoctors, but rather Spindoctors ie. James Hansen, Stephen Schneider etc. The “throwing of the bones” has been replaced by fancy computer models. But like the throwing of the bones, computer models are a very inaccurate way of predicting climate. So instead of running up the mountain to look at the cloud cover, the modern climate scientist looks at climate trends in the charts. If the trend is down we’re heading for a catastrophic ice-age. If the trend is up we’re heading for catastrophic global warming. Dr Stephen Schneider is well known for using this method of climate prediction. And just as was the case in tribal times where the tribe was blamed for annoying the weather gods, so today we are also blamed for climate change.
The climate scientists of today broke their legs in 1998. How long before the public gets completely fed up and burns them at the stake?
Problems with the Climate Models September 15, 2008Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: climate, climate change, Climate Models, global warming, skeptic
Problems with the Climate Models
By Dr Professor Michael R. Fox
From Hawaii Reporter, September 12, 2008
Recalling that people such as Robert F. Kennedy have called climate skeptics “traitors”, David Suzuki calls for their jailing, the Grist website called for Nuremburg trials for them, NASA’s Dr. Jim Hansen calling for their trials for treason, along with the habitual insults from Al Gore, its been difficult for anyone to respectfully dissent. It’s been difficult to stick to the rules of hard science, by demanding evidence and replication, both of which require questioning but are often followed by insults and threats.The world owes a lot to many climate scientists who are closely studying and reviewing the claims of the global warming lobby. They are also attempting to replicate some of these findings without the traditional support of the originating authors. Ordinarily, in the world of hard nosed science, such scrutiny and replication has been historically welcomed. No longer. The well-known name calling, the dismissiveness, the ad hominem attacks, is regrettably now the standard level of discourse. Additionally, these include many laboratory directors, media editors, and Ph.D.s who for whatever reasons adopt the same low roads of discourse and the abandonment of science.
These are difficult times for traditional climate scientists who do practice good science, serious peer review, welcome scrutiny, replication, and the sharing of data. Thanks to the whole world of the global warm-mongers and indentured PhDs, the integrity of the entire world of science is being diminished, followed by a loss of trust and respect.