Friday, 6 February 2015

Climate Scientists' Major Fail.

Prof. Stewart William Franks, Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Tasmania holds a BSc(Hons) in Environmental Science and a PhD, both from Lancaster University (UK). Since 2013, Stewart has been the Foundation Chair of Environmental Engineering at the University of Tasmania.

He has written a piece in the IPA's Climate Change: The Facts 2014. He exposes the flaws in some of the "climate science".

For Instance:
What dismays me the most is that the worst examples of speculative claims often come from the scientists themselves. Commentators from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO are among the worst for making statements that are simply incorrect. 
One stated, ‘of course, the drought has not been helped by rising temperatures, which have increased losses through evaporation,’ and ‘it is very difficult to make a case that this is just simply a run of bad luck driven by a natural cycle and that a return to more normal rainfall is inevitable, as some would hope.’ (David Jones, BoM)
Stewart  says that a report from(David Karoly)WWF followed this same flawed science:
The higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
Then Stewart shows where this is flawed: (bold added)
While this may sound intuitively correct, it is wrong. It completely ignores the known science of evapotranspiration and boundary layer meteorology. That is, when soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun’s energy is used in evaporation and consequently there is limited heating of the surface. However, during drought, soil moisture content is low and consequently nearly all of the incoming radiation is converted into heating the surface. 
Stewart moves on to statements by Kevin Trenberth
Dr Kevin Trenberth, who leads the IPCC science, provided all the inspiration required in a recent paper entitled: "Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change." 
Remember Dr Trenberth?  "It's a "travesty" that "we can't account for the lack of warming.." 

Perhaps Kevin should have describes his latest peer reviewed paper as a travesty.
His essential message was that to ask ‘to what degree climate change contributed to an event’ is actually to ask the wrong question. His message is that every event is influenced by climate change. The implication of this is that because the science cannot answer the question, it doesn’t have to—scientists should just claim everything is a sign of climate change.   
It concluded that everything that happened that summer was due in part to climate change. This is the kind of science many might prefer to the real thing—a science where one doesn’t actually have to do anything to justify one’s claims. In reality, Trenberth’s framing of the climate science debate has little to do with science—it is merely advocacy for a catastrophic future outlook.

Next Stewart describes "One very Unfortunate event."
.....a paper was published in the journal Nature which claimed to have linked increases in rainfall to anthropogenic climate change.
Why unfortunate? Well.....
Expert commentators were sought to evaluate its meaning. To paraphrase, one climate scientist announced that ‘it was published in Nature, so it must be right’, another claimed that ‘we already knew this, so it only confirms what we already thought’. Such comments could have been as easily made without even bothering to read the paper. No critical analysis was ever provided. (bold added)
The Paper:

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes: Min et al - Naturedoi:10.1038/nature09763

The paper must have hit the spot with Alarmist scientist for it has been cited 528 times (link)

Figure 1

There is however one rather major problem with the paper—the study never did compare the calculated rainfall probabilities against the corresponding temperature. If they had, they would have noted that there was no correlation at all between the two. (bold added)
The figure above shows the five year average one-day rainfall probabilities (dark blue line) from 1951 onwards. There is a spike at the end, but no substantive evidence for a consistent trend. 
The light blue line shows northern hemisphere temperature anomalies for the same periods. 
Wha-a-a-a??? Here is a peer reviewed (or should that be pal reviewed) paper that fails to show what it set out to do. Can we have a list of the scientists who missed the fact that there was no correlation, please?

As Stewart explains:
Note that between 1951 and 1980, temperature anomalies were declining, whilst half of the apparent increase in rainfall occurred. There is no correlation between temperature and rainfall intensities. Nor should there be—rainfall processes are far more complicated than being driven simply by temperature. 


  1. Hi there, here is my take about an interesting correlation between many scientists and politicians , -a frightening lack of quality, lies have become a natural way of communication, no self respect or decency left. A pretty bleak picture, since they have all of the mass media coverage, the false message is hammered into peoples minds. Sad. Now, any humble mind can see how flawed the CO 2 myth is, IPCC figures tell us the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere is 400 ppm or 0.4%
    we are lucky to have some, without CO2 there is no life, right? Now, of this tiny figure, 5% is man made, divide 0.4% by 20 and we have now an amount which is even smaller, like 0.002% !! I would welcome a helping hand to enlighten my none scientific, tradies brain, and get an answer how such a miniscule amount of CO2.....

    1. Very good but there is an error. 400ppm is actually 0.04% not 0.4%

    2. We don’t need to wait until the average global temperature trend is unequivocally down. Anyone with access to recorded CO2 and temperature measurement data can falsify the statement that CO2 causes significant warming.

      If CO2 is a forcing, a scale factor times average CO2 level times the duration divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) equals the temperature change of the duration. During previous glaciations and interglacials, CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. Because this is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing, this actually proves CO2 change does not cause significant temperature change.

      See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!