Climate & Climate Change

Perth’s rain did reduce by approximately 10% in the mid-1970’s – and this is what the climate change proponents are now referring to when they say “..greatly reduced long term rainfall averages”.   Read more here from Warwick Hughes.

SCIENTISTS have put a huge amount of effort into generating computer models of our climate system.  These models are very sophisticated and complex and their outputs suggest that increasing carbon dioxide will lead to significant temperature rises for our planet.  Indeed the model outputs now represent the main evidence in support of the anthropogenic (man induced) global warming hypothesis.   Why shouldn’t we take careful note of these results?

Computers are a tool allowing many calculations to be done extremely rapidly.  If we can describe a system we wish to explore via a set of interrelated equations we can then get a computer to repeatedly solve these equations with a small assumed time increment between each set of solutions and do it quickly. The output describes the future as predicted from the input equations.  This is a computer model.  It is important to remember that the model output is completely and exclusively determined by the information encapsulated in the input equations.  The computer contributes no checking, no additional information and no greater certainly in the output.  It only contributes computational speed.

[Read more…] about Pondering Problems with Computer Climate Models: A Note from Michael Hammer

SINCE Copenhagen the intensity of doom and gloom [D&G] has been ratcheted up with such anthropogenic global warming luminaries as Will Steffan and David Karoly declaring their previous predictions not dire enough and so have been superseded by much worse predictions.

Jay Leno has a good response to this;
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”

The question is, is there any evidence to support the worsening D&G?

Professor Chris Field was recently reported on the ABC doing D&G about an increase in fossil fuel emissions, but this quickly died when the penny dropped that the main increase in emissions was coming from China and India, not to mention the fact that temperature was declining concurrently.

With increased emissions insufficient to sustain the D&G could the peer-reviewed literature provide justification? Peer-review is the life-blood of AGW and lo-and-behold it was apparent that the D&G was backed up by several new and recycled papers. 10 of these papers which offer ‘evidence’ for the D&G are discussed. All of them exhibit the usual defects of pro-AGW papers; reliance on modeling regardless of contradictory or non-existent ‘real-world’ data.

[Read more…] about More Worst AGW Papers: A Note from Cohenite

The climate debate is, in reality, about a 1.6 watts per square metre or 0.5 per cent discrepancy in the poorly known planetary energy balance.  Read more here.