OBSERVATION BASED SCIENCE
Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000 - P. J. Durack; S. E. Wijffels; R. J. Matear
Durack et al. reported their main conclusion as follows:-
"We show that ocean salinity patterns express an identifiable fingerprint of an intensifying water cycle. Our 50-year observed global surface salinity changes, combined with changes from global climate models, present robust evidence of an intensified global water cycle at a rate of 8 ± 5% per degree of surface warming. This rate is double the response projected by current-generation climate models and suggests that a substantial (16 to 24%) intensification of the global water cycle will occur in a future 2° to 3° warmer world."
Durack et al. also noted that:-
"This rate of change is consistent with many other independent observational estimates..."
Durack et al. analysed observational data which showed the global water cycle, also known as the global hydrological cycle, increased evaporative cooling by around 8% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.
Since the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases at the rate of around 7% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature, an 8% rate indicates that the water cycle accelerates by around 1% for each 1-degree of global warming. Since a warming climate feeds more energy into the water cycle we would expect some acceleration. So this result is in line with our expectations.
Therefore, in the real world a mooted doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an increase in surface temperature of around 0.6-degrees (see Climate Facts & Calculations).
In contrast, the CSIRO's global climate models have been and possibly still are programmed in such a way that the computers slow down the virtual water cycle by around 3% to 4% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.
Therefore, in the virtual worlds created by the global climate models, a mooted doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide gives rise to a prediction that surface temperature would increase by around 4 degrees.
Durack et al. published their paper in April 2012, well before the 1st July introduction of the carbon tax. When leading this research Paul Durack was working for the CSIRO and the research project was part funded by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The paper was submitted for publication on 4th August 2011; accepted for publication on 23rd March 2012 and published in Science on 27th April 2012.
So well before the introduction of the carbon tax, the CSIRO and the government knew that their own observation based research had confirmed yet again, that the CSIRO's GCMs had a severe structural flaw.
June, August and November 2011
In June 2011 Mr Lawrence Cummings wrote asking that the CSIRO provide an answer to the following question:
"Could the CSIRO please cite the reference to a published peer reviewed climate research paper that provides observational data, which clearly shows the global hydrological cycle slows down (i.e. the period lengthens) as global temperature increases."
In November 2011 Mr Cummings received a reply from the CSIRO, dated August 2011 (see final paragraph) as follows:
"CSIRO has not asserted that the global hydrological cycle is slowing down as the global temperatures increase. We are therefore unable to provide a reference as requested."
The mendacity of the CSIRO is evident in the above reply.
The CSIRO is pretending that its global climate models, which did and presumably still do slow down the global hydrological cycle, also referred to as the water cycle, are somehow separate from the CSIRO.
The CSIRO then uses the word "therefore" to further pretend that it could find observation based evidence that the water cycle in the real world slowed down as the climate warmed, if it had any need to.
The CSIRO would have been well aware since 2007 of the considerable observation based evidence that evaporative cooling increased at 7% or more for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.
The CSIRO would also have been well aware that its global climate models had been programmed in such a way that the models reduced the increase in virtual evaporative cooling to well under 7% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature, as necessary.
It was necessary for the models to reduce the rate of increase of virtual evaporative cooling to less than 7% per degree, in order to keep the energy flows at the surface of the virtual planet in balance, once the computer models predicted a surface temperature increase of more than 0.6-degrees.
The Critical Decade - Climate science, risks and responses - The Climate Commission
On page 21 of its report the Climate Commission advised the federal government and the people of Australia as follows:-
"Similarly, although considerable evidence points toward an acceleration of the hydrological cycle as the climate warms - increased evaporation, more water vapour in the atmosphere, and increased precipitation - this trend is still being debated in the research community."
Having regard to the fact that there was considerable evidence that the water cycle accelerates as the climate warms and no observational data to substantiate the counter intuitive proposition that the water cycle slows down as the climate warms, it is difficult to understand what trend was "...being debated in the research community."
Climate change: a summary of the science - The Royal Society
In its report The Royal Society has this to say about the scientific basis for the attribution of recent global warming to man made emissions of carbon dioxide.
Attribution of climate change
37 "The size and sustained nature of the observed global-average surface warming on decadal and longer timescales greatly exceeds the internal climate variability simulated by the complex climate models. Unless this variability has been grossly underestimated, the observed climate change must result from natural and/or human-induced climate forcing."
38 "When only natural climate forcings are put into climate models, the models are incapable of reproducing the size of the observed increase in global-average surface temperatures over the past 50 years. However, when the models include estimates of forcings resulting from human activity, they can reproduce the increase. The same result is found, albeit with a greater spread between different models, for the simulation of observed surface temperature changes for each of the habitable continents separately."
The Royal Society makes it clear the claims that most of the recent global warming is attributable to man made emissions of carbon dioxide are not based on observational data, but are instead based on virtual data manufactured by the global climate models.
State of the Climate Report - CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology
In their report the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology advised the Australian public as follows:-
"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950.
There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone."
In another display of mendacity the CSIRO and BoM said their conclusion was based on "International research". We know from the Royal Society's report that the 'international research' was not real research carried out on the real earth, as the public would think, but was instead virtual research based on virtual experiments carried out on virtual worlds created by computers. That virtual research gave spurious results because the virtual worlds were a gross misrepresentation of the real earth.
The CSIRO must have known in March 2010 that their global climate models had a severe structural flaw which caused the models to increase virtual evaporative cooling at around half the 8% rate at which it increases for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature in the real world.
The CSIRO would also have known that the proposition that the water cycle slowed down as the climate warms had always been counter intuitive and unsubstantiated.
Minister Combet has confirmed that the global climate models increase virtual evaporative cooling by only 4% for each 1-degree of surface warming, which is half the 8% rate at which evaporative cooling increases in the real world.
(see second dot point in Ministerial Letter for details)
The CSIRO should have already reconfigured their global climate models to increase virtual evaporative cooling by 8% for each 1-degree of global warming and re-estimated the amount of global warming since the mid-20th century that can now be attributed to emissions of man made carbon dioxide.
It is inexcusable that the CSIRO has not corrected the severely flawed advice they gave to Parliament and the Australian public in March 2010.
It is also inexcusable that the CSIRO has not corrected the severely flawed climate predictions that it provided as input to the 2011 Garnaut Report. The 2011 Garnaut Report was used by the federal government to justify the carbon tax introduced on 1 July 2012.
How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Frank J. Wentz, Lucrezia Ricciardulli, Kyle Hilburn, Carl Mears
"Climate models and satellite observations both indicate that the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase at a rate of 7% K-1 of surface warming.
However, the climate models predict that global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1 - 3% K-1.
A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the past two decades."
A change in temperature of 1-degree Kelvin (K-1) is equal to a change in temperature of 1-degree Centigrade. 7% K-1 is the same as 7% per 1-degree change in temperature.
The findings by Wentz et al. were initially reported as showing that man made emissions of carbon dioxide would cause a large increase in rainfall and hence more frequent and more severe floods.
However, instead of the potential calamitous flooding being publicised as an additional calamity that would befall mankind, if we didn't stop burning fossil fuels, the observation based findings by Wentz et al. were rejected.
The scientists who rejected the observation based findings by Wentz et al. must have been aware that a global climate model that increased virtual evaporation by 7% or more for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature would predict only 0.6 degrees of global warming.
Wentz et al. analysed satellite observations which showed the water vapour in the atmosphere increased at the substantial rate of 7% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
Wentz et al. noted that the global climate models increased the virtual water vapour in the atmosphere at the same substantial rate of 7% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
Wentz et al. also analysed satellite observations made with a different set of instruments, which showed that precipitation increased at the same substantial rate of 7% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
Wentz et al. noted that the global climate models increased virtual precipitation at much lower rates of only 1% to 3% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
Wentz et al. also analysed satellite observations made with yet another set of instruments, which showed that evaporation increased at the same substantial rate of 7% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
Wentz et al. also noted that the global climate models increased virtual evaporation at much lower rates of only 1% to 3% for each 1-degree increase in temperature.
The fact that Wentz et al. used separate satellite borne instruments and methodologies to determine the rate of change in each of atmospheric water vapour, precipitation and evaporation makes the consistency of their findings very compelling.
The scientists who rejected the observation based findings by Wentz et al. in effect put forward the following proposition:-
· The scientifically counter intuitive and unsubstantiated theory that the water cycle slows down and evaporative cooling increases by only 3% or 4% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature is correct.
· In measuring the change in precipitation Wentz et al. were wrong by a factor of two, due to errors in the measurements made by the many satellite borne instruments or the procedures used to analyse the data.
· Then in measuring the change in evaporation and hence evaporative cooling Wentz et al. were again wrong and again by a factor of two, due to errors in the measurements made by a different set of satellite borne instruments or the different procedures used to analyse the evaporation data.
· Coincidentally, these separate errors in separate sets of instruments and procedures gave results which were wrong by the same factor of two, or
· Wentz et al. were right, but although the finding that evaporative cooling increased at the rate of 7% or more is what we would intuitively expect to happen, the last 20-years were anomalous. Measurements over say the next 20-years will show that evaporative cooling has reverted to only 1% to 3% per degree, as per the underlying theories programmed into the global climate models.
The mendacious insistence after April 2007 that "The science is settled" shows us that the IPCC and the CSIRO has simply rejected the observation based data and given primacy to their scientifically counter intuitive and unsubstantiated theory that the water cycle slows down as the climate warms.
Objectively Analyzed Air-Sea Heat Fluxes for the Global Ice-Free Oceans (1981-2005)
Lisan Yu and Robert A. Weller
On the basis of observational data Yu and Weller reached the following conclusion:-
"An enhanced oceanic latent heat loss under global warming is anticipated from the viewpoint of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. However, it should be noted that the estimated change in LHF found in this study, which is about 10 W m-2 over the 1981-2005 period, appears to be an order of magnitude larger than the value of 1 W m-2 given by the recent climate model analyses of Pierce et al. (2006). The latter study represents the model simulation of the response of the climate system to global warming. The large difference between our data-based estimation and the model analyses of Pierce et al. suggests the need to reconcile the differences between the flux analyses and climate models."
Evaporative cooling of the surface is technically described as the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere in the form of latent heat of vaporisation. "LHF" is Latent Heat Flow or evaporative cooling.
"10 W m-2" and "1 W m-2" are energy flows or fluxes at the rate of 10 watts per square metre and 1 watt per square metre.
Evaporative cooling takes place mainly (88%) over the oceans, which cover most (71%) of the earth's surface.
The mendacious insistence after April 2007 that "The science is settled" shows us that the IPCC and the CSIRO has simply rejected the observation based data and given primacy to their counter intuitive and unsubstantiated theory that the water cycle slows down as the climate warms.
Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle
Myles R. Allen and William J. Ingram
Towards Objective probabilistic climate forecasting
Myles R. Allen and David A. Stainforth
Allen & Ingram show in their Figure 2 that the then global climate models slowed down the virtual water cycle significantly and so predicted increases in virtual evaporation of much less than 7% (the Clausius - Clapeyron or C-C line) for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.
The proposition that the water cycle slows down as the climate warms is scientifically counter intuitive. As the climate warms more energy is fed into the water cycle, so the fact that the global climate models slowed down the water cycle would have been and still is of great concern to all scientists, or at least to those that happen to be aware of it.
In fact we all expect that as more energy is fed in man made car engines will accelerate and likewise the natural water cycle will accelerate.
The global climate models therefore had two unnatural forcings. These were the highly publicised increase in virtual anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and the slowing of the virtual water cycle. Of these two unnatural forcings around 80% of predicted global warming is attributable to the slowing of the virtual water cycle and only 20% or 0.6 degrees is attributable to the increase in virtual carbon dioxide. As far as we are aware this has never been disclosed to the Parliament and the Australian public.
In a separate paper Allen & Stainforth note that the data then being gathered by the weather satellites would give global observational data on which to base analysis of the response of the global water cycle in the real world to increases in surface temperature.
Presciently, Allen and Stainforth also noted that "...modellers share views, data, algorithms and hence, inevitably, errors."
A decade later in August 2012 Minister Combet confirmed that the global climate models did indeed share a severe structural error (see second dot point).
A number of scientists have used estimates based on real world data as a basis for claims that man made emissions of carbon dioxide might cause potentially dangerous global warming
In its 2010 report "Climate Change: a summary of the science" (para. 40 to 45) the British Royal Society made it clear that the IPCC's claim that man made emissions of carbon dioxide might cause potentially dangerous global warming were based on virtual data manufactured by the global climate models.
One great value of computer models is that they make explicit most of the assumptions that underpin any claim about the effects on climate of man made emissions of carbon dioxide. This includes the explicit assumption that the water cycle slows down and evaporative cooling increases at substantially less than 7% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.
There have been other claims, which are not based on virtual data manufactured by computer models, that a mooted doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide might cause a multi-degree increase in surface temperature.
However, consideration of the NASA surface energy flow schematic shows us that these claims are also based on the now implicit assumption that the water cycle slows down and evaporative cooling increases at substantially less than 7% for each 1-degree increase in surface temperature.