Mistakes made by Trenberth (and many others) when claiming veracity for climate models

Six months ago I posted, “Sensational statements by Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC supporter”, June 23rd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes.

Pat Frank says:
December 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

The central point Trenberth makes about GCM predictive reliability is this one, “The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity.”

What he’s saying is that one can reliably project future forced global temperature differences because in subtracting forced GCM runs from control GCM runs all the errors subtract away, leaving a reliable trend in anomalies.

But this is assuming much more than mere “linearity.” It assumes the GCMs procduce global climate projections with completely accurate slopes. Trenberth is claiming that GCM runs are only linearly offset by some standard vertical magnitude from being fully correct — and the same standard vertical magnitude is present in both control runs and forcing runs. Therefore, subtracting the latter from the former produces accurate anomalies.

But this is very different from assuming mere linearity. It supposes that the physical representation of the global climate itself — the physical theory in the GCMs — is complete and accurate. The errors are merely from imperfect measurements and a too-coarse resolution because of computer limitations. This assumption — assertion, really — is entirely unjustifiable.

For example, all GCMs include a hyperviscosity because the Navier-Stokes equations can’t be solved at all the necessary levels of resolution. The hyperviscosity, which is completely unphysical, is the only thing that makes the GCMs integrable — they would catastrophically diverge otherwise. Because there is an unphysical hyperviscosity, the parameterizations in GCMs must also be unphysical in order to compensate. Consequently, GCMs inherently cannot be physically correct. Trenberth’s claim includes an implicit but absolutely central assertion that cannot be true. The physical theory in GCMs is neither correct nor complete. Trenberth is wrong, the reliability of temperature predictions can not be claimed accurate through taking differences, and the whole of AGW so-called science is powered by this sort of tendentious delusionalism.

Warming bias in media releases from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

“Record hot start to December 2007″, trumpets the BoM Darwin Office on Monday 3 December 2007.

When you check to see daily max and mins for a range of Northern NT stations,
(scroll down past the green rainfall data to the pink and blue max and min temperature data). You find that this heat wave was pretty much a one day wonder in many places, a couple of days in some.
Further down the page I note how the BoM show bias towards reporting warming events by not putting out a media release about the stunning cold record day 20 June 2007 etc as recorded at Tennant Creek and many other places on 19th, 20th and 21st June 2007 across the continent from Halls creek to SW Qld, to NW NSW.
Continue reading

David Archibald solar paper now on YouTube

David Archibald can be seen and heard on YouTube talking about his 4 Part paper “Past & Future Climate change”.

I have several Blog posts drawing attention to David’s important prediction that Solar Cycle 24 would be delayed, shorter than other major climate groups (NASA, NOAA) were saying and could in his opinion lead to a cooling climate.

On December 16 I drew attention to;
Contrasting forecasts for Solar Cycle 24

then a couple of months later I posted
Has anybody seen any recent sunspots ? February 23rd, 2007

Then on March 27 I posted David Archibald’s new paper predicting global cooling ahead;
The Past and Future of Climate

Solar Cycle 23 not ending yet
July 6th, 2007 Download a PowerPoint presentation of David Archibald’s latest edit of his paper, “The Past and Future of Climate” presented at the Lavoisier Conference in Melbourne June 2007.

Still on solar issues. Exactly where Lockwood and Fröhlich are wrong

There never was a rain shortage to justify seawater desalination for Perth’s water supply

Click for 3 page illustrated word doc report Yes that is a 32 year average of nearly a metre of rain per year.
35 years of Perth catchment rain trends
There has developed in Australia since 2002 muddled thinking at a policy level aided and abetted by a Green media confounding rain and water issues with “Greenhouse climate change” that prevents proper analysis of rainfall and water supply issues.
Click for many other articles re Perth, Western Australia water supply and Govt distortions and propaganda about rainfall issues.

Marked deterioration in Willis Island temperature data quality

The small coral atoll Willis Island (16.3 South, 150 East) is the site of a weather station in the Coral Sea just over 400 kms easterly from Cairns, north Queensland, Australia.
At a time of national green media driven near hysteria over “global warming” and widely accepted claims that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is threatened by “global warming”, it seems odd in this modern day and age that highly relevant temperature data can not be successfully recorded.
Why has Willis Island temperature data deteriorated to such an extent as to now be useless ?
Below is the monthly mean data from NASA GISS from 1992 the year with the first missing month
Continue reading

Is the Great Barrier Reef threatened by global warming ?

On the night of the Australian Federal Election 24 November 2007 Treasurer Elect Wayne Swan was heard to say on Channel 9 TV that the swing to the ALP in electorates along the Queensland coast was due in part to “global warming threatening the Great Barrier Reef (GBR)”.
Willis Is temperatre trend
Here is the temperature trend for Willis Island, site of a weather station in the Coral Sea just over 400 kms easterly from Cairns. The Liberal Senator Helen Coonan tried bravely to swim against the tide and hinted at complex scientific issues that had to be understood but her effort was swept aside.

Does anyone seriously think the GBR could be “threatened by global warming”, when the Willis island data shows no trend since WWII ?
How do such fairy stories pass as fact and become part of national mass belief ?