Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun digs up another issue with non peer reviewed World Wildlife Fund reports in the IPCC AR4. It turns out a new paper in GRL handily disputes the cause of the drought.
He writes:
Melbourne University alarmist David Karoly once claimed a rise in the Murray Darling Basin’s temperatures was “likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human acitivity” and:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd grabbed the scare and exploited it:
BRENDAN Nelson was yesterday accused of being “blissfully immune” to the effects of climate change after he said the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin was not linked to global warming…
In parliament yesterday, Kevin Rudd attacked Dr Nelson, accusing him of ignoring scientific facts.
“You need to get with the science on this,” the Prime Minister said. “Look at the technical report put together by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.”
But the latest evidence shows that Rudd and Karoly were wrong. In fact, there’s no evidence in the Murray Darling drought of man-made warming, says a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, this new study:
Previous studies of the recent drought in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) have noted that low rainfall totals have been accompanied by anomalously high air temperatures. Subsequent studies have interpreted an identified trend in the residual timeseries of non-rainfall related temperature variability as a signal of anthropogenic change, further speculating that increased air temperature has exacerbated the drought through increasing evapotranspiration rates. In this study, we explore an alternative explanation of the recent increases in air temperature. This study demonstrates that significant misunderstanding of known processes of land surface – atmosphere interactions has led to the incorrect attribution of the causes of the anomalous temperatures, as well as significant misunderstanding of their impact on evaporation within the Murray-Darling Basin…
However, to accept the correlation [between temperature and rainfall] as the sole basis for the attribution of cause to human emissions is to implicitly assume that the correlation represents an entirely correct model of the sole driver of maximum air temperature. This is clearly not the case.
What’s causing the evaporation and temperatures is not (man-made) warming. It’s kind of the other way around: more sunshine, through lack of cloud cover, and lack of rain and therefore evaporation is causing higher temperatures.
And guess which scandal-ridden and alarmist IPCC report relied on Karoly’s claims? Reader Baa Humbug:
Karoly was cited very extensively in the AR4 WG1 paper.e.g. Chapter 9 9.4.2.3 Studies Based on Indices of Temperature Change and Temperature-Precipitation Relationships.”Studies based on indices of temperature change support the robust detection of human influence on continental-scale land areas. Observed trends in indices of North American continental scale temperature change, (including the regional mean, the mean land-ocean temperature contrast and the annual cycle) were found by Karoly et al. (2003) to be generally consistent with simulated trends under historical forcing from greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols during the second half of the 20th century. In contrast, they find only a small likelihood of agreement with trends driven by natural forcing only during this period.
We have the following “gates”
Indian sub-continent — glaciers melt and leave dry by 2035
Africa — rainfall down by 50 percent
Austrailia — droughts
Do you think that there is an attempt to report a major climate change “apocolypse” in every major continent or sub-continent to build world wide political support? If that is the case, then the remaining future “gates” are in the remaining continents.
I think it’s jealousy. Glaciergate, Africagate, Australiagate, NZgate etc. We were there first in the UK: Climategate. Accept no substitutes.
Our crooks are bigger than your crooks. Our crooks lied about the whole planet, continually. Our crooks were ploting to avoid FOI requests before your crooks wrote their first magazine article in ‘Climate Fraud for Dummies.’
Good to see we are still world leaders in something. The problem is it’s a once only thing. After this the phrase ‘British Scientist’ will probably produce polite smiles, sniggers behind the hand and pats on the head.
I blame Dad’s Army myself. Who knew that private Fraser would have such an influence.
The data is here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T
As noted above.
MiniTab 15 , 30 Day download is here:
http://www.minitab.com/en-US/products/minitab/free-trial.aspx?langType=1033
Download MiniTab, run Histogram, Normal Dist. curve and Anderson Darling Test for Normalicy. With the exception of three “outliers” (which, by the way are about 700, 750, and 800 mm, i.e. the high end) this is a “Normal Distribution”.
NOTHING in the last 10 years is outside that “Normal Distribution”.
Gee wiz! Do you think that weather might be “random” but fit a “Normal Distribution” curve?
DO ANY OF THESE SO CALLED “CLIMATE EXPERTS” KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT STATISTICS, AND THE STATISTICAL NATURE OF NATURAL PHENOMENON?
Absolutely. Overclaiming sets you up for undermining.
Somewhat OT but still relevent to the warming issue:
To see just how warm 2010 is so far, go here:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
At the Near the Surface Layer check every year back to 1998, and redraw the graph…it is amazing how far above the group this year stands. If this trend continues, not only will 2010 will not just beat 1998, but blow 1998 out of the water as the wamest year on record. The year is early and lots can happen (like a volcanic eruption of the magnitude of Mt. Pinatubo) but given that the sun is really starting to wake up and march upward to the solar max of 2013, and CO2 and methane are going up up up, we’ve got a lot warming in store…
Watch for socialist Red-Green Al Gore’s AGW Death Count.
“as a Siberian blast of bitterly cold air sweeps through Europe and freezes Britain.”
…-
“Siberian cold likely to bring sub-zero temperatures and snow
Winter will make an icy return this week as a Siberian blast of bitterly cold air sweeps through Europe and freezes Britain.
Much of the country could see snow, with forecasters saying that sub-zero temperatures could last until the end of the month.”
“Already this winter has been the coldest since 1981-82 across Britain, and the coldest in Scotland in archives dating back to 1914. With a cold February now in prospect, this winter is now turning out to be unusually long and hard — more like the “winter of discontent” in 1978-79, one of the worst winters of the 20th century.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article7018518.ece
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013302.html
Can anyone find anything, just something that may be even close to the truth in the IPCC reports !
I am willing to bet that they claim the earth is round. Which is true. But i am also pretty sure they blame that fact on human causes…..
R. Gates (09:24:21) : A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺
Funny to see a slew of much more nuanced scientific papers is coming ou after Copenhagen… I guess scientific journals’ editors probably held them for after the announced, supposed triumph of IPCC -recall that prior to Copenhagen, alarmism was the rule- hoping that no one would pay attention to them in view of the ground breaking political accord. But the strategy is backfiring and every new paper with a moderate view is now more than ever picked up and shown as a proof of IPCC, journals and MSM bias.
Opposition against Climate legislation from Utah
R. Gates (09:24:21),
Will you ever get up to speed?
Here, let me help: click
See what happened after 1998? Nothing.
Calm down. The climate is normal. Nothing unusual is happening. What you’re seeing is natural variability.
I agree with mpaul – this isn’t a -gate.
Not sure I really understand this article, must have misread it twice.
The drought isn’t necessarily caused by warming temperatures, the warming temperatures could be caused by the drought.
But rainfall in the area has remained steady or increased, so what caused the drought?
Is this instead an example of Pielke Sr.’s land-use changes causing global warming?
I wonder why they have put so many useless information in their report. Because only useless information can be falsified without any effect on the conclusion.
R. Gates (07:24:03) :
“OT: Someone asked on another thread why we should care if the arctic sea ice should disappear. Here’s a brand new study that gives some possible details of why:”
The Pew Environment Group have been spouting rubbish on this and other climate/environment topics for some time. This report is no exception. It is based on bad assumptions and poor science.
The Arctic will continue to be frozen even if the IPCC’s baseless and alarmist worst case prediction of a 6 degree C rise did happen. History shows that the amount of sea ice is never constant over time and amounts have varied drastically over the decades. I think you will get a feel for how bad this report is from the first paragraph, which is complete ‘marketing speech’.
Conclusion
“The frozen Arctic provides immense services to all nations by cooling the earth’s
temperature—the cryosphere acts like an air conditioner for the planet. As the Arctic
melts, this critical, climate-stabilizing ecosystem service is being lost, and this paper
provides a first attempt to monetize the cost of some of those lost services.”
When a certain person keeps popping up on threads with irrelevant OT posts, perhaps we now have a new ‘gate’ to add to the collection, “Rubbish-Gate”, or R.Gate for short :-))
President Obama, please follow India’s suit: Pull the US out of the IPCC to keep your pledge to ‘restore scientific integrity to government decision making’
http://algorelied.com/?p=3672
Tomorrows new ClimateGate ‘Gate” may be SunsteinGate or CensorGate
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5086
When I first saw the all important AR4 report and opened it to the contents and saw they had spelt “atmosphere” wrong, I immediately got a feeling for the high standard of work that went into it and the thoroughness of the review process!
Kate (01:29:12) : From the article you linked:
Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – the expert at the centre of the Climategate scandal – said he had considered suicide
Come on Phil! That happens because you are new in politics, we use to lie every time and we just don’t kill ourselves for that…
I vote we ban the use of “Robust” from any use other than describing coffee, and “made up from whole cloth” from anything not having to actually due with cloth.
These are getting up there with Harrismint.
Tony Hansen (04:48:11) :
Geoff Sherrington (01:24:58) :
‘The good Prof David would have a brain able to occupy a week long conference on psychiatry, to use the “Fawlty Towers” comment’.
Not kind, Geoff.
True….but not kind.
Ha, from what I’ve read about Fawltry Towers, Geoff’s reference sounds more puposefully a little too kind.
On the contrary, pychoderangements such as disasterizing and predicting the Apocalypse are critical to both propagandists’ non-cynical use of this kind of mechanism – as genuine or not “clinically detached” from its use – and to the effect desired by genuine and nongenuine practitioners alike upon those to whom the propaganda is directed for its mass effect. AGWers are nearly always either manifesting some degree of panic or trying to induce it in others in order to abort a truely rational or scientific approach to the alleged problem, which then embodies and leads to all the dysfunction we see in “Climate Science”, partlicularly that it is not real Science but instead a gigantic Propaganda Operation – one whose “success” would instead lead almost certainly to genuine man made disasters.
Isolating the “psychiatric” nature of AGW “science” in general helps to explain AGW science itself, perhaps so we can head it off in time and prevent similar recurrences which tend to endanger, not help people – although at the same time no one knows if or how many individuals can be helped to escape the claws of their own fear mechanisms. I know some people very well for whom this problem nearly runs their lives – it’s like an obsessive compulsive disorder run amok and unfortuneately externalized as a form of “idealistically” helping others or “saving the world”, so that other people must be made to obey the dictates of the obsessive compulsion, too.
I’m not excluding myself from this mechanism, either. But knowing it exists seems to help me to at least keep it to myself, and see it as my problem to deal with, and not everyone else’s to enable or become slaves to.
Imagine that. The driest continent on the planet experiencing periodic droughts! Surely this could not have happened before! Yes, it must be humans responsible for the drought this time. Clearly much of what the alarmist camp is using as scientific evidence, is anything but…..
Tenuc said:
“The Arctic will continue to be frozen even if the IPCC’s baseless and alarmist worst case prediction of a 6 degree C rise did happen.”
Tenuc, if you believe the world could see 6 degrees C of warming without losing all arctic sea ice and probably melting most of the permafrost as well, then we have very little scientific basis for agreement. No point in answering or responding to you. Good day…
ScientistForTruth (08:01:00) : it is even worse than you state, this from Christopher Bookers Article on the 6th regarding “that by 2035 all Himalayan glaciers will have melted. In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story. Some glaciers were retreating, others were not.” This is the British Establishment he are talking about, they knew the 2035 was wrong in 2004.
sorry – This is the British Establishment he is talking about, they knew the 2035 was wrong in 2004.