The fifth and latest IPCC assessment report, published in 2013, showed that climate models failed to predict the absence of warming from 1998 and 2012, and that climate scientists have no clear idea of why they failed. (NB. I have added the bolding in the following extracts.)
“… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).” [WG I SPM, page 5, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]
“… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
“There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [WG I SPM, section D.1, page 15, bullet point 2, and full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
“This difference between simulated [i.e. model output] and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error“. [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]
IN MY SIMPLER WORDS …
1 – According to statistical practices the trend in temperature from 1998 to 2012 (the 15 years prior to the report being drafted) falls somewhere between slight warming and slight cooling. In other words there is no certainty that any warming occurred.
2 – Despite claims of the accuracy of climate models most of the model runs (97%) wrongly predicted warming from 1998 to 2012.
3 – The IPCC is admitting that “some models” – we are not told how many, so maybe it’s almost all – exaggerate the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
4 – The models could be wrong for a number of very basic and general reasons; the IPCC really doesn’t know why the models failed.
Or “Droughts and Extreme Weather are Nothing New.” by Dr Bill Johnson
Outpourings of climate bulldust over recent decades have been more alarming than changes in the climate.
Drought and above-average temperatures during recent El Niño-dominated years from 2001 to 2010 were deliberately and relentlessly marketed as global-warming. Driven incestuously by WWF and its Wentworth Group; green groups; Climate Commissioners; and a bunch of pretend-institutes, superlatives flew-up every greasy-pole out through talking-heads into the community’s ear.
Australians endured an endless chatter-based marketing campaign involving the ABC, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology that intertwined CO2; the hot/critical decade; Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) “health”; and the carbon tax; grinding them into our national psyche. Science was reorganised with rivers of tax-payers cash enticing once-proud universities to lend brand to the cause. Every hot/cold/dry/wet day, clamouring professors popped out of disused broom-cupboards across the land, waving models and “new reports”. It was an overt scientifically-disingenuous beat-up.
BACK in the 1980s anthropogenic global warming was resurrected. Its emphasis was that man-made CO2 would dangerously heat up the world and had to be controlled.
And there was lots of money available if this could be proved. So a multi-billion dollar industry was born.
The first thing was to speed up the rate of warming. This was done by ignoring a large number of temperature measuring stations from cold areas like Siberia, places with altitude such as Bolivia and only one above the Arctic Circle. So far so good.
Two distractions were the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann removed those with his hockey stick graph. It has since been shown that feeding random numbers into his program always resulted in a hockey stick. It rapidly went from the 1995 IPCC report’s cover and Al Gore’s presentations into obscurity.
There was also a problem with the record high temperatures from the 1930s–1940s. To lower them, the major measuring agencies started to adjust the original temperatures. This can be legitimate if weather stations have been moved or their surroundings compromised. A photographic record of every station in the US shows that 80% are no longer correctly positioned mostly due to urbanisation (green fields are now asphalt parking lots). Logically the old readings should have been regarded as valid and current readings would need to be lowered. They’ve done the opposite.
They started reducing the temperatures pre-1960 (give or take) and increasing them since then. NOAA for example was adjusting temperatures this way by 0.01 Fahrenheit per month, but then went to doing it twice a month. But hey, when you’re on a good thing, do it more often! The Australian, NZ and GB BOMs, and the US’s NOAA and NASA have all been doing this. They have also stopped providing historical data to other weather forecasters.
Parts of NOAA were so concerned with their official figures they established 100 green field stations across the US. After 10 years they show a steady drop, whereas the “official” adjusted figures just keep rising. Satellite measurements, which are difficult to fudge, are also showing a stable or dropping temperature pattern.
So what does this all mean? Our temperature records have been modified to meaningless; the computer models are useless (87 of 89 major models can’t get within two standard deviations of actuals); the actuals haven’t risen for 17 years; our governments do not class CO2 as a pollutant (look it up); environmentalists should embrace the benefits of more CO2; windmills and commercial solar should be junked.
Let’s get back to using coal and gas, which are more reliable, cheaper and are less dangerous (actually beneficial) to our environment.
We have experimented with square wheels and they have been a failure; we need to get back to ones that make the world go round.
John Ibbotson, Gulmarrad NSW
First published in The Daily Examiner 5 Sep 2014
In 2007 John wrote and published one of the first Australian books sceptical of AGW: Planning Ahead For Future Generations, by Highlighting Climate Change Myths. www.lighthouses.com.au
John is still actively involved in slaying global warming myths and fighting for a better deal for Murray Darling irrigators.
The moon causes tides on Earth. The most obvious ones are in the oceans, but they also occur in the atmosphere and also in ground water and even in the crustal material.
The moon also reflects solar radiation, maximized at full moon and minimized at new moon.
These effects are also maximised at perigee, when the moon is closest to the earth.
Ken Ring is a New Zealand based private weather forecaster. Ken provided the following brief summary of the importance of the Moon on Earth’s weather.
The Effects of the Moon on Earth’s Weather
By Ken Ring
Phase
The moon is responsible for the daily atmospheric tide, which changes air height according to the inconstant position of the moon. When the moon is above the horizon the air-tide is “in” and when it sets below the horizon and until the moon rises the air-tide is “out”.
This changing air height varies ground temperatures throughout the day, depending on the moon phase. It is well known that the full moon increases the temperatures on earth:
When the moon is out of the sky in daylight hours (1stQ moon dawn-noon, full moon time dusk-dawn, and lastQ time noon-dusk), the sun’s heat can reach the ground more intensely, with no absorbent air to block its path.
When the moon is out of the sky at night (lastQ dusk to midnight, new moon (midnight-dawn), and 1stQ midnight-dawn), the airtide is “out” letting in more of the heavier cold air from the edge of space which cools the ground more than otherwise.
In summer the full moon time is the hottest of the month, and consequently is around the time of the month when tropical cyclones form, because the water within 6 deg of the equator can be heated to 26-28degC which is required for sufficient evaporation to occur that will provide enough to fuel the cyclonic system. The new moon is also a cyclone breeder, because the new moon is in the sky all day which tends to clear the sky, thus allowing the sun’s heat to again penetrate closer to the ground.
Declination
The moon changes hemispheres on a 27-day cycle, due to the tilt of the earth. In summer the new moon is always over the southern hemisphere, the full moon is over the northern hemisphere, and the quarter moons are over the latitude of the equator. In winter the full moon is over the southern hemisphere and new moon over the northern hemisphere.
Perigee
The perigee is the shortest moon-earth distance, and varies over a 27-day cycle. Perigee exaggerates whatever else is going on. When it is, e.g. full moon and perigee in summer, there is extra heat around. It may be noted that TC Ian began to form around 1st-2nd January, when it was new moon + a very powerful perigee (second closest moon-earth distance) for all of 2014.
There is no way to measure global temperature at any one moment, when at that moment half the world is experiencing freezing winter and the other the half burning heat of summer. Also, half the globe is enjoying daylight and the other half the cold night temperatures. There is no thermometer invented that can measure the temperature of the whole globe at once, nor the temperature of anywhere a day ahead and certainly not measure temperature of anything, let alone the whole world, over a whole decade or century ahead. Anyone who thinks they can is just guessing.
Ken Ring, of www.predictweather.com is the Australasian longrange forecaster who predicts coming weather patterns by planetary cycles and orbits of the moon and sun. It is science, not astrology.
Ken is longrange consultant and presenter for both Australia’s Channel Seven and Nine Networks and author of the Weather Almanacs for Australia.
Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists Or The Data? By Dr David M.W. Evans
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message — here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies, the University of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland, in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.
Abstract. The threat of dangerous climate change from anthropogenic global warming has decreased. Global temperature rose from 1975 to 1998, but since then has levelled off. Sea level is now rising at about 1.5mm per year based on tide gauges, and satellite data suggests it may even be falling. Coral islands once allegedly threatened by drowning have actually increased in area. Ice caps cannot possibly slide into the sea (the alarmist model) because they occupy kilometres-deep basins extending below sea level. Deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years and in all that time never melted, despite times when the temperature was higher than it is today. Sea ice shows no change in 30 years in the Arctic. Emphasis on the greenhouse effect stresses radiation and usually leads to neglect of important factors like convection. Water is the main greenhouse gas. The CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere are in equilibrium: if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere the ocean would give out more to restore the balance. Increasing CO2 might make the ocean less alkaline but never acid. The sun is now seen as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases. There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.
Prominent climate alarmist James Hansen claims that the wisps of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could melt all the ice caps, cause the ocean to boil and that would be the end for all of us.
Listen to the him trying to scare us witless:
Are we and the fishes and the corals in danger of being cooked?
The diagram below shows that the Pacific Ocean surface temperature is not rising – in fact it looks to be slowly turning into a cooling phase. The seasonal variations caused by the sun are obvious, but there is no correlation between this horizontal trend of temperature and the rising trend of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
Well, the verdict is in on Global Warming, and guess what? There isn’t any!!! So says the British Met Office in a new report, issued quietly and without any publicity last month.
In fact, they sheepishly admitted that there has been “no measurable increase in Global Temperature during the last 16 years”. If you missed this story when it broke, you can read the full article at the following link:
By Dr. Robert Brown,
Physics Dept. Duke University
One of many, many problems with modern climate research is that the researchers seem to take their thermal reconstructions far too seriously and assign completely absurd measures of accuracy and precision, with a very few exceptions. In my opinion it is categorically impossible to “correct” for things like the UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect — it presupposes a knowledge of the uncorrected temperature that one simply cannot have or reliably infer from the data. The problem becomes greater and greater the further back in time one proceeds, with big jumps (in uncertainty) 250, 200, 100 and 40 odd years ago. The proxy-derived record from more than 250 years ago is uncertain in the extreme, with the thermal record of well over 70% of the Earth’s surface completely inaccessible and with an enormously sparse sampling of highly noisy and confounded proxies elsewhere. To claim accuracy greater than 2-3 K is almost certainly sheer piffle, given that we probably don’t know current “true” global average temperatures within 1 K, and 5K is more likely.
Back in the 1970’s the Climate Scare was all about Global Cooling. Naturally it was all caused by wicked man’s industry and his pollution of the atmosphere. There was a consensus.
But the temperature trends changed, so the alarmists changed. Even the same people who figured prominently in the Global Cooling Scare later became leaders of the Global Warming Scare. We are again told there is a consensus.
Bad science is made by consensus. Good science is made by critical analysis of facts. Analysis of facts suggests that global cooling is probably more likely than global warming. Facts also suggest that humans have very little effect on climate trends.
RSS
