Missing News: No skill in climate modelling

Earlier this year we reported that ABC failed to cover problems with IPCC climate models that predicted both more and less rainfall in Eastern Australia. Now a new study in Hydrological Sciences Journal compares model outputs with observed data finding "that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor".

See: A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data 

Authors: G. G. Anagnostopoulos^a; D. Koutsoyiannis^a; A. Christofides^a; A. Efstratiadis^a; N. Mamassis^a

Abstract We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

Once again ABC provide its audience the climate science it wants you to see.

Climate models: raining on your parade ground

Anonymous writes:
You missed South-east climate changing: CSIRO
The SEACI uses DownScaling to apply the IPCC Global Climate Models to South East Australia. They are actually computer projections of computer projections which as everybody knows result in computer projections! Don't look now fellas but its raining on your parade ground.

With IPCC models predicting more and less rainfall for SE Australia (see our post
Missing News: Climate models are an each way bet) why doesn't the ABC spend some more time actually investigating these claims?

From that post "7 of 15 models predict that mean annual rainfall would decrease by between 2 and 10 per cent, while 8/15 models predict that rainfall would increase by between 2 and 10 per cent by 2030. "

Extreme drought predictions little more than hot air

ABC once again push all the alarmist buttons with this headline "Earth could see extreme drought in 30 years" covering a study that reports on the findings of a new paper titled Drought under global warming: a review by National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Aiguo Dai. Pity ABC did not spend the time to investigate past the press release. Roger Pielke Snr points out some items missing from ABC's coverage: 

The National Science Foundation Funds Multi-Decadal Climate Predictions Without An Ability To Verify Their Skill

"This UCAR press release and the article itself are not scientifically robust. Buried within this material are the significant cavaets:
1. “Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.”
2. “Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”

In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].

Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting changes in the frequency of drought in the future."

Once again ABC miss the real story.

Missing News:CO2 Control Knobs skewed

ABC science have thus far not reported on a recent paper in Science by Andrew Lacis et al that claims atmospheric CO2 is the principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Just in case they do and omit to balance their report with the opinions of other distinguished scientists here are a few comments on the paper of relevance that thoroughly skew it as it rolls off the presses...
Dr Roger A. Pielke Sr.
"Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback. However, it presentation as a major new research insight by Science is puzzling,.."
Dr Roy Spencer:
"As I have already pointed out, the authors have predetermined what they would find. They assert water vapor (as well as cloud cover) is a passive follower of a climate system driven by CO2. They run a model experiment that then “proves” what they already assumed at the outset.
But we also need to recognize that their experiment is misleading in other ways, too."

The a paper itself appears to be a re-hash of Lacis comments made at Andy Revkin's Dot Earth blog under the header "Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming"

Missing News: BoM admits to hot cities

BOM finally finds UHI in Australia's temperature record, and somehow ABC don't find it newsworthy!

Bureau of Meteorology

Wednesday 13 October 2010

MEDIA RELEASE

Hot cities

If you thought our cities are getting warmer, you're right.

Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.

Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said "we've known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat's retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too."

"But what we didn't know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect."

"We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer," Ms Campbell said.

Rest HERE and conference abstract HERE

We wonder how Laverton faired?

High CO2 kills Krill!

istockphoto

ABC reporters failed to ask pertinent questions and produced this rather scary headline on ABC News Online: Antarctic krill at risk from CO2. The report states:
"Scientists exposed the laboratory krill embryos to varying levels of carbon dioxide, from as little as 380 parts per million, which is the current surface level, to 2,000 parts per million. The embryos exposed to the highest level did not survive."
Here are a few questions ABC did not ask...

Question: And what is the likelihood that atmospheric CO2 levels will reach 2000ppm in the near future?

Question: Given that atmospheric CO2 levels are unlikely to go anywhere near 2000ppm over the course of the next million to 100 million years, how are these alarming but highly improbable results relevant to the current policy debate? 

Question: How did krill perform under conditions that are realistic over the next 100 years, at CO2 levels say of 500ppm? Is it true there was no effect at this level of CO2?

Question: Krill are crustaceans. You have taken krill adapted to current levels of CO2 and placed them in an environment they are not adapted to. As crustaceans are among the most successful animal groups having survived  periods in Earth's history when CO2 levels were more than 4000ppm, what does this say about the capacity for krill to rapidly evolve to future conditions where CO2 levels are higher? As they have survived previous periods of high CO2 would you agree that the odds are that they will be around long into the future, any comment?

Update: Here's some good news for the Krill...

1. Jessica. A. Ericson, Nicole Hellessey, So Kawaguchi, Stephen Nicol, Peter D. Nichols, Nils Hoem, Patti Virtue. Adult Antarctic krill proves resilient in a simulated high CO2 ocean. Communications Biology, 2018; 1 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0195-3

Where's Aunties Vigorous climate debate

Vigorous climate debate a plus

The Australian provides a stinging editorial on media coverage of climate change, damning rival newspaper The Age for its lack of balance in reporting climate change science. 

It concludes:

There was a time when The Age took a broader view of national debate rather than the narrow, monocultural outlook that has permeated its columns in recent years, which has tended to exclude more-mainstream opinion. It is not the media's role to play quasi-censor in an unfolding debate in which so much is at stake economically and socially.

It also works if you substitute "The Age" for "The ABC". Where's Aunties vigorous climate debate?