Climate Propaganda from the Australian Academy of Science

The Australia Academy of Science has recently published a Q&A about human-induced global warming titled The science of climate change.  Their press release is here.  Examples from around the blogosphere:

There are numerous examples of why that global warming-climate change report is nothing but propaganda. One is the following nonsensical discussion and images:

Using climate models, it is possible to separate the effects of the natural and human-induced influences on climate. Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone139 (Figure 3.5). This is both an important test of the climate models against observations and also a demonstration that recent observed global warming results largely from human rather than natural influences on climate.

Figure 3.5 from Australia Academy of Science Report

Their Figure 3.5

Note:  Their reference 139 is Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.

The Australia Academy of Science fails to mention that climate models do not, cannot, simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to and suppress long-term global warming…like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and El Niño and La Niña events. We know that climate models can’t simulate those processes because one of the lead authors of a few IPCC reports told us so back in 2007.  Of course, I’m referring to Kevin Trenberth’s blog post Predictions of Climate at  (I’ve archived a copy here…just in case the inconvenient original disappears.)  We discussed Trenberth’s blog post recently in Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools.

The caption for the Australia Academy of Science’s Figure 3.5 reads:

Figure 3.5: Climate models can correctly replicate recent warming only if they include human influences. Comparison of observed changes (black lines) in global temperatures (°C) over land (left) and land plus ocean (right) with model projections including both natural plus human influences (red lines) and natural influences only (blue lines). Shadings around model results indicate 5-95% confidence bands139. Adapted from IPCC (2013)79, Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Figure 10.21.

“Correctly replicate”?  Apparently the Australia Academy of Science has a very low threshold for their use of the word “correctly”.  We illustrated and discussed how poorly CMIP5-archived climate models simulate surface temperatures in the posts:

And for sea surface temperatures, see the posts:

I’m sure you can find other examples of propaganda in the Australia Academy of Science recent report on global warming and climate change.

[Thank to blogger Neville for the heads-up.]

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Alarmism, CAGW Proponent Arguments, Climate Model Failings. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Climate Propaganda from the Australian Academy of Science

  1. Thanks, Bob. But you are being too strict; at least the models got the sign correctly, the planet has warmed. Also, the IPCC GCMS got the slope correct in hindcast. /sarc

  2. I wonder if the GCM s match the slight temperature increase shown by the RSS TLS plot Bob had in his earlier update?

    I was writing a comment at The Chemist’s blog, mostly about my career background as a quality checker of scientist/engineer/economist team products, and I started sketching the products I would request to dig down into GCM useability.

    I remembered Bob’s plots, and I decided I really need to have something similar, but in three dimensions with fancy color schemes. We use those to visualize our dynamic model results and compare them to actual data. And when it comes to such comparisons I would try to focus on data from 2000 to 2014 inclusive. What do you guys think? Is anybody doing it this way?

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    Fernando, please provide a link to a sample of what you want to do.

  4. Bob, what we used at work was set up by the information technology department. I believe the basic set up kit started at $400,000 but there are several centers where the room and associated equipment cost a few million $. The visualization products are proprietary (we look at oilfield description and performance).

    But here’s a link to webpages which show something like it.

    My search turned out quite a few links to “civilian” software, gaming virtual worlds, and so on. What I have in mind is much heftier. The idea is to grab the data set (real data), display it in a 3d grid, and create “movies”. Say you want to focus on 2000 to 2014….this would require taking the data and setting it up for visualization. I think it’s fine to use kriging, and re analysis to fill in the gaps, but this requires thought.

    Once you have it you can run it and watch the time sequence. I have sat watching these for hours, just learning how things interconnect. I’m not a climatologist, but I bet it’s useful to run actual CO2 concentration, methane, water vapor, clouds, temperature interplayed (we use colors and contours to display two sets of properties). It’s also possible to memorize the overall 3d shape for a property, and then project two other properties.

    Once the observers have intimate knowledge of the “data look”, they can run the model output for the same time period. The model “look” won’t be the same. This can be supple red by running the difference between the model and real data. Color code the larger differences in red, make volumes where everything agrees blue. You know, use the full rainbow palette. The areas where the difference is greatest will show up as red blobs, red blankets, etc.

    Once the differences between the model and reality are evident, you go sit down in the cafeteria with the other team members and start discussing where things went wrong.

    I bet NOAA has something like it. But what they do for the public is gs. They trick the color palettes and do “climate brainwashing” displays. The real nuts and bolts don’t seem to be discussed with the general public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s