From       (5700 words no graphics)       Home       Fast-Find Index

IPCC's abuse of science 2
Part 1 of open letter to Australia's Chief Scientist
Professor Ian Chubb October 2012

By John Happs

Dr Happs is a former lecturer in the geosciences and author of numerous science texts and book chapters. This is his open letter of 3 October 2012 to Australia's new Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb. The letter describes in detail with many quotes how Professor Chubb is biassing climate findings to suit the Government, thus adding to the growing international scandal. It comes after his open letter of 20 December 2009 to Australia's then Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett. Part 1 compares the views of Professor Chubb with those of world experts on different aspects of climate such as carbon dioxide emissions, sea ice, hurricanes, floods, bushfires, and global cooling. On a separate page Part 2 features 46 accusations against the IPCC by former IPCC scientists, 23 examples of malpractice, and 13 examples of malfeasance. This website version has been slightly abridged. The original version on (see clickable link at end) aroused much interest.

Dear Professor Chubb,

I have written to you on several occasions expressing my concerns about incorrect public statements you have made about climate change. I note that you provided testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation, on 26 September 2011 in which you provided "information" about climate science to the committee. Climate science is an area in which I believe you, as a neuroscientist, have no expertise. Let's look at the Committee's questions and your replies:

Carbon dioxide and ice melt
Senator Milne on the Joint Select Committee asked you: "What can we learn from the record Arctic ice melt this year?" You replied: "The latest information I have seen shows that the carbon dioxide levels are high and that the rate of accumulation is accelerating. ... The scientists who study this would argue that it is getting to the point where something has to be done quickly in order to cap them at least and start to have them decrease over a sensible period of time." In fact most "scientists who study this" reject your points completely. Carbon dioxide levels are not high. The levels we have today (about 388 ppm) are amongst the lowest they have been in over 500 million years. You do not appear to understand that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that has never driven global temperature in the past and there is no empirical evidence that it drives global temperature today.

Carbon dioxide makes up a trivial 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere and human activity worldwide contributes a mere 3% of this (this is not a misprint). The rest comes from non-human sources such as volcanoes, ocean de-gassing, decomposition of carbonate rocks (limestone), and decomposition of organic matter. To believe that carbon dioxide emission reduction by Australia or indeed any countries will make any measurable difference to carbon dioxide levels or global temperature is absurd.

You said: "Again, the evidence I have seen suggests that you could not get that Arctic melt if you did not factor in the increased emissions that have been occurring through human activity." This is a preposterous statement and I would certainly like to see some empirical data for unusual Arctic ice melt and any link with human activity. For more than 80% of the last 500 million years the average global temperature has been significantly higher than it is today. The Joint Select Committee needs to understand that, if all the glaciers and ice sheets disappeared completely, that would be the Earth's climate getting back to normal.

In reality there is no "normal" temperature for the Earth. There has been ongoing cooling since the Cretaceous Period, about 65 million years ago. The last 3 million years have seen dramatic swings in temperature as the Earth has shifted between glacial and interglacial periods. (An interglacial period is the period between glacials periods.)

Disappearance of Arctic sea ice
It is not unusual for the Arctic sea ice to "disappear." The retreat of ice from the Arctic has been recorded many times and there are numerous reports such as these ones: In 1906, Norwegian explorer Ronald Amundsen and six crew members sailed the Northwest Passage from east to west, becoming the first to completely traverse the passage. In 1922 the US Weather Bureau reported: "The Arctic Ocean is warming up. Icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by great masses of moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

In 1937 Professor V Vize reported a 2°C rise in Arctic temperature and a notable recession of glaciers and sea ice. In 1940, and again in 1944, a group of Canadians, led by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer Henry Larsen, traversed the Northwest Passage. In 1947 Dr Hans Ahlmann reported a "mysterious warming of the Arctic." He said: "If the present melting rate continues, sea level will rise to catastrophic proportions. People living on lowlands and the coast will be inundated." It did not continue. In 1959 photographs were taken of the USS Skate, surfaced in clear water at the North Pole on 17 March. In 1987 photographs were taken of 3 submarines (HMS Superb, USS Billfish, USS Sea Devil) surfaced in clear water at the North Pole on 18 May.

You made this comment to the Joint Select Committee: "The point about these things is we have human activity superimposed on natural processes but it [Arctic Ice] is as low or equal lowest as it has ever been. If it is not the lowest then it is the second lowest and the lowest was three years ago." Professor Chubb, this is totally incorrect. Had you bothered to check satellite data you would find that AQUA satellite data is in agreement with JAXA data. Both show that Arctic ice has been increasing. If the trend up continues (likely unless changing winds moves ice near the edge out to the Atlantic or compresses it), it will have fallen more than 6% short of the 2007 satellite record.

Rather than blindly accepting summary statements from the now discredited IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the government's compliant scientists, I would expect some independent analysis and due diligence from Australia's Chief Scientist before public statements are made about ice melt in the Arctic.

Carbon dioxide and global warming
Senator Milne asked the question: "At the same time, Australia has signed up internationally to constrain global warming to less than two degrees. Is 550 parts per million on track to constrain global warming to less than two degrees?" Now any suggestion that we can somehow control the temperature of a planet by manipulating the pitifully low levels of man-made carbon dioxide is childish and fanciful. Nevertheless you replied: "We are making decisions that are based on the best modelling available now based on the information we have now. If that changes then surely one has to change one's goals, targets and ambitions."

Climate modelling
Had you sought independent advice about "the best modelling available" you would have found that even the IPCC acknowledges the limitations of their own modelling. Their computer models have not been able to predict future climate accurately, at either global or regional level. This is well understood by all climate modelling practitioners and their colleagues, starting with the IPCC authors who wrote (in the Third Assessment Report Section p.774): "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Here are some others:

Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC senior scientist and lead author, admitted that: "There are no (climate) predictions by the IPCC at all and never have been." Dr Jim Renwick, senior IPCC representative, stated that: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Dr James Koermer, Professor of Meteorology and Director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University, stated: "Global warming hysteria is based to a large extent on the unproven predictions of climate models. These numerical models are based on many simplified approximations of very complicated physical processes and phenomena. My biggest concern is their [computer models'] lack of ability to adequately handle water vapor and clouds, which are much more important as climate factors than anthropogenic [man-made] contributors. Until we can realistically simulate types of clouds, their optical thicknesses, and their altitudes, which we have a difficult time doing even for short-term weather forecasts, I can't have much faith in climate models."

So why didn't you tell the Select Committee that even the IPCC has admitted that the best modelling available is totally inadequate for predicting future climate?

Accuracy of computer projections
You said: "What we are projecting seeing is hugely changing patterns of rainfall and weather and the intensity of certain weather events." But projections from unvalidated computer models is one thing. Reality is another. Listen to the experts:

In 2007 Douglass et al tested computer model predictions against real world observations. They said: "We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition." In agreement with this, Professor Demitris Koutsoyiannis reported that the IPPC's computer predictions about future climate from 1990 to 2008 had a success rate of about 12%. Yes, 12%. I am not making this up.

UK Met Office models get it dead wrong
In 2009 computer models predicted an 85% chance of normal or warmer than average winter conditions in the UK. Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the UK Met Office, said: "The trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future." Earlier, in 2000, the Climatic Research Unit's alarmist Dr David Viner, predicted that winter snowfalls in Britain would soon be a thing of the past. He said: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Both predictions were dead wrong.

In fact, the 2009-2010 winter in Britain was the coldest for more than 30 years. Below zero temperatures in December, January and February made it the deepest freeze since 1978-1979. The Central England Temperature from the 1st to the 7th December last year averaged -1.9°C, bringing the coldest week in December since 1879.

Now the notorious British summer. In 2010 the UK Met Office predicted one of the "five warmest years ever" and a "barbecue summer." Again it was dead wrong. In fact heavy rainfall saw the wettest July for almost 100 years. Now for the bad news:

Professor Julia Slingo of the UK Met Office admitted that they use the same computer models for weather forecasting as they use to predict climate 100 years ahead. These are the models which, for the last 3 years, have been dead wrong. It is my understanding that the UK Met Office has now suspended its seasonal forecasts and I suggest they abandon any 100 year forecasts as well.

Climate models no better in Australia
Australian Bureau of Meteorology computer models proved no better, completely failing to provide a long-term prediction about the significant rainfall and flooding which impacted the eastern states. Any model which incorporates carbon dioxide as a significant warming agent into its algorithms will prove to be useless. As Professor Stewart Franks from Newcastle University said: "Nor should we pay much heed to those who may loosely call themselves climate change scientists and who make alarmist claims for the future climate. They should acknowledge that we never could predict the future climate of 10, 20, 50 or 100 years time, at least not with any credibility."

Professor Chubb, why didn't you provide the Joint Select Committee with this information?

You went on to say: "I think there does need to be a recognition that the evidence of science is suggesting that we will have changed weather patterns and extreme weather events with much greater frequency than we have at the moment. That is where the evidence sits right now. Of course, where they will occur and all the rest of it we do not know. But that is where the evidence is pointing and that seems to me to be the view of the majority of scientists who are studying that particular aspect of weather and climate." Wrong. If you think that is where the evidence sits right now, I suggest you are being told about so-called "evidence" from vested interest groups and not looking at the evidence made available by the broader scientific community.

Tropical cyclones
As far back as 1996 the IPCC "Science of Climate Change" report stated that "it is not possible to say whether the frequency, area of occurrence, time of occurrence, mean intensity or maximum intensity of tropical cyclones will change." Since then the IPCC, no doubt prompted by advocacy groups, has become more alarmist about its extreme weather predictions, but without any supporting evidence. For example the IPCC has wrongly linked global warming to increasing frequency and severity of disasters such as hurricanes and floods. The claims were based on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to scientific scrutiny. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

Another example. The IPCC's Final Assessment Report (WG1 SPM) claimed an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity "in some regions since 1970" and "in the North Atlantic since about 1970." In fact there is no meaningful trend. For the North Atlantic, the Report misleads its readers by pointing out the increase since 1970 but neglecting to mention the decrease prior to 1970. The same Report (p.15) says: "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures." We have seen how unreliable the models are. So terms such as "Based on models" and "likely" are hardly convincing.

Dr Chris Landsea has made clear that the IPCC has systematically ignored the science on hurricane intensity presented by its own experts. Rather, the IPCC have promoted dramatic scenarios which are not backed up by research findings. For example Dr Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the IPCC, announced at a press conference at Harvard University that there was a clear relationship between global warming and the increased intensity of hurricane activity. Incidentally, Trenberth has no expertise in this area. Dr Landsea was so annoyed about this unsubstantiated claim that he withdrew from the IPCC. He asked: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? ... As far as I know, there are none." He added: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. ... I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

Other experts confirm Dr Landsea's views: In 2006 Wu et al found no increase in either intensity or number of hurricanes striking the USA and a significant downward trend for some areas of the Pacific. Pielke et al concluded that "claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature." 2009 data from the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies in Florida, show that global tropical cyclone activity is currently at its lowest level in 30 years. In 2011 Mau reported on recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity.

Compensation claims from African nations
The IPCC prediction on the severity of disasters was central to demands by African nations at the Copenhagen climate summit for compensation of $US100 billion from the rich nations. Interestingly, the IPCC knew in 2008 that the link could not be proved but did not alert the media or politicians, who have used weather extremes to bolster the case for action on climate change. But the prediction was wrong:

The Western North Pacific tropical activity (typhoons) was well below normal in 2007 and 2008 as it was in the Eastern North Pacific. The Southern Hemisphere, which includes the southern Indian Ocean from the coast of Mozambique across Madagascar to the coast of Australia, into the South Pacific and Coral Sea, also saw below normal activity in 2008. In support of this, using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index, Bell and Chelliah reported that, despite IPCC computer models predicting an increase in overall cyclone activity, the activity has continued to fall to levels not seen since the 1970s. Once again the models were wrong. (For the record, 1935 saw the most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US, and the 1940's saw the most US hurricane strikes of any decade.)

During the 2008-2009 tropical cyclone season, the Southern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy index was about half of what would be expected in a normal year, with a multitude of very weak short-lived hurricanes. In fact, just as there are active periods of hurricane activity around the globe, there are inactive periods, and we are currently experiencing one of the most pronounced inactive periods for almost 3 years. Dr Roger Pielke, Professor of Environmental Studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, reminds us that: "Our understanding of the complicated role of hurricanes with and role in climate is nebulous to be charitable."

Professor Chubb, you also mentioned an increase in the intensity of rain and flooding: "The argument at the moment is that there will be, for example, much more intense cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere, and more intense rain and flooding. There will be a lot more intense and focused events of that type and that character as the climate changes. That is where the current view is." No it isn't!

Flooding in Queensland was hailed by the media as a "freak weather event" which it wasn't. In fact flooding has been a recorded fact of life in Queensland since the 19th Century. The latest flood was well below the 1974 level and more than 3 metres lower than the 1893 flood. Ups and downs are to be expected. The dynamic nature of our climate results in 2 or 3 decades of regular flooding followed by similar periods of drought (eg 1910 to 1945). This shift from flood to drought is controlled by what are known as El Nino and La Nina episodes with El Nino existing between 2001 and 2008. A recent swing to pronounced La Nina activity saw nearly 2 years of storms and resulting floods -- not predicted by computer models.

El Nino (roughly a significant warming of surface water in the eastern Pacific) and La Nina (significant cooling) exhibit a seesaw effect known as the Southern Oscillation. They affect the weather across more than half the planet. They also affect global temperatures. Professor Neville Nicholls (Monash University) stated: "The Queensland floods are caused by what is one of the strongest La Nina events since our records began in the late 19th century." Queenslanders need realistic flood adaptation strategies rather than embracing futile and silly attempts at reducing carbon dioxide levels to control climate and flooding. It is the discredited IPCC and many environmentalists and politicians who have demonised this essential life-giving gas for their own purposes. To make it quite clear, there is no empirical evidence which links carbon dioxide levels with storms and floods.

On the Joint Select Committee, Mr Cheeseman asked: "Given that the science is telling us that we are going to see a drier climate and more intense droughts, particularly in the south-east corner of Australia, as a consequence one might assume that we will see more intense bushfires. Is that a reasonable observation of the science?" You replied: "There are those who say that, yes." Mr Cheeseman continued: "So we might start to see more circumstances like the events of a number of summers ago in Victoria where bushfires will become a real danger to the Australian community?" You replied: "You could reasonably speculate that, yes." But Professor Chubb, you should know that in science we don't speculate, we look for empirical evidence.

Bushfires have always been part of the Australian landscape and much of our vegetation has evolved because of fire. It recovers quickly for the same reason. Many gum trees have kino in their bark which helps them resist heat penetration. Lignotubers are common in eucalypts, giving the plant an ability to survive drought and fire. Some gums have epicormic buds under their bark and these are protected from fire, allowing dense leaf growth following a bushfire. Most people are familiar with banksias and acacias that need fire to split open their seeds, which germinate after the fire has passed.

Sparg et al have described how smoke from bushfires stimulates seed germination in a number of plant species. Global warming alarmists really should heed the words of National Association of Forest Industries chief executive Allan Hansard when he said: "Bushfire management policy must be based on the best scientific knowledge, not the whims of uninformed green ideologists." People living in Victoria, will long remember the bushfires of Black Saturday 2009 but many of them might have forgotten the Black Friday event of 1939.

Crompton et al have evaluated the history of building damage and loss of life due to bushfire in Australia since 1925. They acknowledged a link between fire damage and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole phenomena, but found no evidence of any influence from climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions. Their more significant findings were to do with issues of land-use planning.

In 2009 Roger Underwood presented a case study on Australian Bushfire Management in which he made the comment: "They cannot say the impacts of intense bushfires on human communities were unimaginable. We have known for 200 years that European settlement represented the insertion of a fire-vulnerable society into a fire-prone environment." He continued: "Research has confirmed that fire is not an alien visitor, but a natural part of Australian bushland ecosystems. ... There is no question that the influence of green activists at Federal, State and Local government levels has resulted in a steep decline in the standard of bushfire management in this country. ... The excuses put forward, especially that fires are unstoppable because of global warming, are simply that: excuses."

Carbon dioxide emissions
You told the Joint Select Committee: "I have read the literature that says that a lot of work is being done in a lot of countries to try and get stabilisation, yes, and that there are a lot of countries now taking action, on the basis of the scientific evidence, to reduce their emissions." I would certainly like to see that scientific evidence. And "a lot of countries" is incorrect, see next.

Professor Richard Muller has said: "The developing world is not joining-in with carbon dioxide emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so." Thus only a few developed countries have embraced the carbon dioxide - catastrophic global warming mantra of the IPCC. They include EU countries, New Zealand, and Australia. Collectively this represents a mere 8% of global population and around 14% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, Europe's economy is far from robust and they may well regret their pointless and unachievable emission reduction and renewable energy targets.

Robert Stavins, Director of Harvard's Environmental Economics Program said: "It's unlikely that the USA is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction." The USA is far too worried about its current economic position to take any action on emissions reduction that might impact on its economy. It is not alone:

China has questioned the link between carbon dioxide and global climate and is the world's largest emitter, building the equivalent of one new coal-fired power station per week. India has flatly rejected the IPCC alarmist claims and recommendations of the IPCC. India's emissions continue to grow. Canada, Russia and Japan have all withdrawn their support of the Kyoto Accord. Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iran will not reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, their emissions continue to increase.

The remaining countries support about 40% of the world's population and around 20% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. They will certainly not reduce their emissions and restrict their improving standard of living. So when you say that: "There are a lot of countries now taking action, on the basis of the scientific evidence, to reduce their emissions", it does not reflect the true picture.

Global cooling
You also said: "With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means. I know you get fluctuations in that; of course you do. There are natural events. Nobody has ever argued that there are not natural events in the climate." Now when you refer to "this cooling stuff" I assume you are referring to the fact that there has been no global warming since the 1970's with global cooling from around 2002.

But consider your statement: "the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet." This is dead wrong and reflects a total lack of knowledge about paleoclimate. For example 1000 and 120,000 years ago Greenland was several degrees warmer than it is now. Crops grew where they won't grow today.

Glacials and interglacials
We are currently living in a mild interval (or interglacial period) between glacial periods. We emerged from the middle of a glacial period about 14,000 years ago and we should not be surprised if the planet has warmed since that time and has continued to warm. There have been four interglacials during the last 400,000 years and they have all peaked at temperatures higher than the current interglacial.

For more than 80% of geologic time, global temperatures have been significantly higher than today. Greenland ice core analysis clearly show: a Minoan warming about 3500 years ago, a Roman warming about 2000 years ago, a Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago, and currently twentieth-century warming, with each new warming being about 1 degree cooler than previous warm periods.

Professor Chubb, please do your homework before making incorrect statements in front of a committee which, one hopes, is seeking factual information about the climate.

IPCC ignores satellite data
Why didn't you tell the Joint Select Committee that satellite data, showing cooling, has been ignored by the IPCC? Atmospheric physicist Dr Fred Singer notes: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites? Probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models." Physical chemist Dr Martin Hertzberg observes: "It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium."

Dr Mojab Latif, climate modeller and IPCC author told more than 1,500 climate scientists at the UN's World Climate Conference in Geneva (New Scientist 9 September 2009) we could be entering one or even two decades of cooler temperatures.

Dr David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, asks the question: "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"

Climate scientist Dr John Christy points out that few scientists actually believe global warming is taking place so we now come across weasel terms such as "climate change" and "climate disruption." Christy says: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

It 's worth repeating Christy's statment: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring." Contrary to some media and politicians claim, 4000 scientists did not say that human activity is causing global warming. This claim was endorsed by only five IPCC reviewers. Professor Chubb, shouldn't you be informing the Joint Select Committee about this?

Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admitted in a BBC interview that: "for the two periods 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different." So we have the imprimatur of Phil Jones (inventor of the misleading hockey stick graph) to the key fact that recent warming, towards the end of the last century, was not unusual.

Satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted. Climate warming is not continuing as predicted by the IPCC and CSIRO computer models. Real-world data from NASA's TERRA satellite contradict the various assumptions that have been fed into alarmist computer models. When satellite data show a large discrepancy between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and politicians should pay attention. And Australia's Chief Scientist should be informing the Joint Select Committee accordingly.

More on global cooling
The Royal Society has admitted that the recent spell of warming ended in 2000 and the UK Met Office has confirmed that satellite temperature data show no temperature increase over the past ten years. The journal Science has said the pause in global temperatures is real, as do many refereed scientific papers in numerous journals. For instance, Kaufmann et al stated: "Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008." Dr Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg, said. "Many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality."

Back on the Joint Select Committee, Mr Cheeseman asked the question: "Over the last decade in southern Australia we have seen perhaps the worst drought ever recorded in Australia. What does the climate change science tell us about drought and the frequency and intensity of drought?" You answered: "What happens out there as the temperature warms -- where evaporation is greater, more clouds are formed etc -- is not something that I am expert in, and an expert could probably give you a better answer to that part of it than I can. But there does not appear to be much doubt that there is a shift in our patterns."

Drought in Australia
It would appear that neither you nor Mr Cheeseman are aware that the last decade did not see the "worst drought ever recorded in Australia." In fact the major drought periods of 1895-1905 (Federation Drought); 1958-68 and 1982-83 were more severe. Northern Queensland experienced a 70 year drought between 1801-1870 when I suspect there was little talk of global warming.

On 12 January 1896, 47 people died in a heatwave in Bourke NSW when temperatures averaged 47°C for 13 days. Of course we all know what the warming alarmists would be saying if those extreme drought conditions had been experienced in more recent times. Droughts will continue to be a prominent feature of the Australian scene and the causes of drought have their origins in the natural fluctuations of the climate system including El Nino and La Nina. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to link human activity with droughts.

Drought in the USA
In 1995 Soule and Zhi-Yong Yin found that, for the USA, 95 years of data showed a shift toward more normal or above normal moisture conditions. Their work agreed with Karl & Heim's 1990 finding that the contiguous United States has not undergone a substantial trend toward drought conditions this century. These positive 50 and 30 yr trends also support Idso & Balling's 1992 finding of a significant trend toward wetter conditions in the post-1954 period.

Dr David Stockwell examined models used in a major drought study by the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report was used to support the claim that major increases in drought frequency and severity in Australia would result from further increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Wrong. In fact, droughts decreased during the 20th century as rainfall increased. The climate models used in the DEC Report predicted the opposite. The IPCC and the Australian Academy of Science consider General Circulation Models to be of limited value when predicting regional rainfall change.

For 46 accusations against the IPCC by former IPCC scientists,
23 examples of malpractice, and 12 examples of malfeasance:
Return to home page and click on Part 2

Click here for original version (you will leave this website)
and follow prompts to Chief Scientist's Call to Arms

From       (5700 words no graphics)       Home       Fast-Find Index