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:
- Andrew Montford discussed it briefly in his post The Oz guide to climate change at BishopHill.
- The Australian published the article Academy warns of climate risks to Australia.
- Jo Nova briefly mentioned it in her post The quickening for Paris has started: gravy train begins PR avalanche.
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.
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 Nature.com. (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:
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
- Model-Data Difference – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies – GISS, HADCRUT4 & NCDC
- On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison
And for sea surface temperatures, see the posts:
- Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014
- IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide
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.]