Aussie CSIRO Predicts the End of Wheat Yield Gains

Yet again, “Climate Change” fingered as the great demon that causes unending planetary horror.

However, it appears its evil byproducts – modelled heat and CO2 – are in fact increasing, not decreasing wheat crop yields in Australia…

“Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences tips record national crop” (Sep 2016)

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/australian-bureau-of-agricultural-and-resource-economics-and-sciences-tips-record-national-crop/news-story/ba6d21901a8db0369abcca5b37dd20f2

And their prediction was spot on:

“Australia’s winter grain crop officially a record at 59 million tonnes.” (Feb 2017)

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/nrn-record-winter-crop/8268564?pfmredir=sm

What planet do the CSIRO climate-obsessed, doomsday scenario “scientists” live on?

Sounds to me that they live on the ever-forgiving and lucrative planet of horror-scenario computer models providing endless government (taxpayer funded) “climate” research grants…

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to the Australian CSIRO, “The lines will cross” in 20 years, heralding the end of biotechnology’s ability to improve wheat yields.

Climate change to blame for flatlining wheat yield gains: CSIRO

By Anna Vidot

Updated Thu at 11:59am

Australia’s wheat productivity has flatlined as a direct result of climate change, according to CSIRO research.

While 2016 set a new national wheat harvest record, the national science organisation’s findings indicate that result masks a more troubling long-term trend.

While Australian wheat yields tripled between 1900 and 1990, growth stagnated over the following 25 years.

Zvi Hochman, a senior research scientist with CSIRO Agriculture and Food said the team considered whether other factors could have shared the blame, such as investment in research and development (R&D), changing patterns of land use, and soil fertility.

But those could all be ruled out: investment in grains R&D…

View original post 329 more words


New UCLA End of Snow Prediction

“Climate scientists regularly embarrass themselves with “end of snow” predictions, because they are an inevitable consequence of the “projections” (don’t say predictions) of their runaway climate models.”

Dr David Viner of CRU should have taught the climate catastrophists a lesson or three. Although, that was back in 2000. Short memories them climate “scientists”, perhaps ?!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

UCLA thinks that by the end of the century, Climate will reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack by 85%.

Climate change puts California’s snowpack in jeopardy in future droughts

UCLA research shows how warming trends affect the Sierra Nevada now and in the future

Belinda Waymouth | March 09, 2017

Skiing in July? It could happen this year, but California’s days of bountiful snow are numbered.

After five years of drought and water restrictions, the state is reeling from its wettest winter in two decades. Moisture-laden storms have turned brown hillsides a lush green and state reservoirs are overflowing. There’s so much snow, Mammoth Mountain resort plans to be open for business on Fourth of July weekend.

The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides 60 percent of the state’s water via a vast network of dams and reservoirs, has already been diminished by human-induced climate change…

View original post 570 more words


Claim: climate effects violence

I have definitely become more violent, over the past ten years, since moving from the uplifting, bitter cold winters of Southern Australia to the depressing tropical heat of South East Asia.
/sarc.

Yet another ‘global warming causes everything’ agitprop study.

Does anyone actually believe the constant, daily climate BS being drilled into them anymore?! Studies on belief and interest on majority man-made ‘warming’ suggest they don’t…
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/triumph-of-the-sceptics/

Watts Up With That?

From the “murder rate must be highest near the equator” department comes this odd piece of research

Researchers offer new theory on how climate affects violence 
Climate impacts life strategies, time orientation, self-control

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Researchers have long struggled to explain why some violent crime rates are higher near the equator than other parts of the world. Now, a team of researchers have developed a model that could help explain why.

This new model goes beyond the simple fact that hotter temperatures seem to be linked to more aggressive behavior.

The researchers believe that hot climates and less variation in seasonal temperatures leads to a faster life strategy, less focus on the future, and less self-control – all of which contribute to more aggression and violence.

“Climate shapes how people live, it affects the culture in ways that we don’t think about in our daily lives,”…

View original post 651 more words


Climate Models Don’t Work

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on alarmist climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.

CMIP5 IPCC climate models don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).

What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.

RCP8.5 BS in = Alarmist BS out.

It’s no wonder ‘Climate models don’t work’!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures . Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3″.

clip_image002

NOAA climate activist scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt challenged Dr. Christy’s work claiming that it was “partisan” and using vague statistical arguments claimed that Christy’s work improperly presented the performance of climate models. These claims by government scientist Dr. Schmidt peaked the interest of statistics expert Steven McIntyre who was one of the most prominent  experts to expose the flawed science (proxy shenanigans) and mathematics (statistical errors) behind the now disgraced thousand year long global temperature profile infamously known as the “hockey stick” (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf).

Mr. McIntyre conducted a review of Dr. Schmidt’s claims (https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy

View original post 752 more words


Introducing the global warming speedometer

Watts Up With That?

A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.

clip_image002

The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.

Observed reality

RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports

IPCC (2007, 2013) are…

View original post 292 more words


Freeman Dyson: Democrat Supporter, Climate Skeptic

Maybe the smartest man since Einstein, Freeman Dyson, on CO2 and climate change:

An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

On climate models:

“it’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago.”

On ‘Paris’:

“Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.”

H/t: Garth Godsman

Watts Up With That?

Freeman_Dyson_scr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most prominent physicists, has given an interview to The Register, in which he discusses climate change, and his disappointment that President Obama, whom he strongly admires, chose the wrong side of the Climate issue.

Freeman Dyson on Politics;

An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

Freeman Dyson on Climate models;

Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don’t know about…

View original post 271 more words


Real World Data Sinks The Great Global Warming Swindle

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

CGafZRMUcAAm1Y4

•••

via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because their argument is unsound

Mark Steyn on the despair of the warmists:

The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:


The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.

As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds:

That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.

Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.

UPDATE

Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?

Jo Nova:

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said…

If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%.  Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.

Atmospheric scientist John Christy contradicts our Bureau chief:



Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’

•••

See also :