Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Abdussamatov. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Abdussamatov. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with an Electrical Circuit Analogy

A paper published in the Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis & Applications by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of Russia's leading solar physicists, uses an electrical circuit analogy as a model of Earth's planetary heat balance. 

Simple electrical circuit analogies have also been used by other papers to demonstrate that radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere is "short-circuited" by convection dominating over the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, and thus implying minimal impact from changes of CO2 concentrations on surface temperatures. 

Illustration of an electrical circuit analogy to radiative-convective equilibrium in a planetary atmosphere. Pressure and heat capacity set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rc above. GHGs set the resistance [opacity] to infrared transmission illustrated as the resistor Rt above. As noted, "Resistance Rc corresponds to convection "shorting out" the radiative resistance Rt, allowing more current [analogous to heat in the atmosphere] to escape. If the resistance [IR opacity] of Rt increases due to adding more greenhouse gases, the resistance [IR opacity] of Rc will automatically drop to re-establish balance and thus the current through the circuit remains the same, and analogously, the temperature of the surface of the planet remains the same and self-regulates. Source

Dr. 
Abdussamatov's more sophisticated circuit analogy includes the additional "components" of surface and atmospheric "capacitors" analogous to the thermal inertia of atmosphere, land, and oceans. The paper finds Earth's "thermal inertia constant" to be ~8.5 years, and that perturbations in energy balance require about 3 thermal inertia values ~3*8.5 = 25.5 years to reach a new steady-state condition. 



Analysis of the circuit using differential and simultaneous equations finds that for typical values corresponding to the present climate system, "a decrease of atmospheric transparency (for example, as result of the growing of the greenhouse gases concentration) causes increasing of the heat power emitted by the atmosphere to space, and this heat power increases faster than the heat power absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface radiation." i.e. increasing greenhouse gas concentrations at the present levels in the atmosphere causes increased cooling, not warming, of the surface.

"Dependencies of derivatives Ns= dTs/dγ and Na= dTa/dγ on the radiative heat flux from the surface to the space through the atmospheric window were investigated. We found that the decreasing of atmospheric transparency causes the decreasing of Ti when qs < 50 Wm2 , because in the range  of value 0 < qs < 50 Wm2  the derivatives are positive. For such conditions it is found that decrease of atmospheric transparency (for example, as result of the growing of the greenhouse gases concentration) causes increasing of the heat power emitted by the atmosphere to space, and this heat power increases faster than the heat power absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface radiation. Note, that this result corresponds to conclusion from [6] obtained using the other approach."
This is also consistent with increased greenhouse gases increasing the radiative surface area to space, analogous to a larger heat sink on your microprocessor causing increased cooling via enhanced convection and radiative heat losses. The finding that increased greenhouse gases cause "increasing of the heat power emitted by the atmosphere to space" is also consistent with observations of an increase over the past 62 years of outgoing longwave infrared radiation [OLR] to space, opposite to the predictions of climate models and AGW theory. 


Modeling of the Earth’s Planetary Heat Balance with Electrical Circuit Analogy

Download as PDF (Size:1244KB) HTML PP. 133-138

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Alexander I. Bogoyavlenskii, Sergey I. Khankov, Yevgeniy V. Lapovok


ABSTRACT
The integral heat model for the system of the Earth’s surface—the atmosphere—the open space based on the electrical circuit analogy is presented. Mathematical models of the heat balance for this system are proposed. Heat circuit which is analog of the electrical circuit for investigating the temperature dependencies on the key parameters in the clear form is presented.

Monday, August 4, 2014

New paper argues current lull in solar activity is consistent with a Gleissberg Cycle minimum

A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics finds that recent low solar activity "mirrors" extended solar minimums in the 19th & early 20th centuries, as well as other periods over the past 1000 years consistent with the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle of solar activity. Such periods have also been associated with global cooling. 

According to the authors
"The recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910. Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. This paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC's is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores."
If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is "consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles," and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.

Reconstructed solar geomagnetic aa-index from Lockwood et al 1999. Graph source

The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima

Authors: Joan Feynman [sister of famed physicist Richard Feynman] and A. Ruzmaikin

DOI: 10.1002/2013JA019478

The recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910. Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. This paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC's is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores. The aa index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field) the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

New paper predicts another Little Ice Age within the next 30 years

A new paper by solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.




grand_minimum.png
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]
Excerpts:
Significant climate variations during the past 7.5 millennia indicate that bicentennial quasi-periodic TSI variations define a corresponding cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warmings to Little Ice Ages and set the timescales of practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system. Quasi-bicentennial cyclic variations of the TSI entering the Earth’s upper atmosphere are the main fundamental cause of corresponding alternations of climate variations. At the same time, more long-term variations of the annual average of the TSI due to changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit, inclination of the Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane, and precession, known as the astronomical Milankovitch cycles, together with the subsequent feedback effects, lead to the Big Glacial Periods (with the period of about 100,000 years).
The start of Grand Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle is anticipated in solar cycle 27±1 about the year 2043±11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060±11 Figure 1, 2). Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-005. these prognoses are confirmed by the Sun itself and the course of global temperature changes and the level of the World ocean for the past 16 years.  In general, by analogy with the seasons on Earth there is also a similar alternation of climatic conditions in the Solar System, dictated by the quasi-bicentennial cycle variation of the TSI. 
From this point of view, ow the whole of our Solar System after season of the "solar summer" is moving to the season of the "solar autumn" and then will move to the season of the "solar winter" of the quasibicentennial solar cycle. There is simultaneous warming of the Earth, Mars and the whole Solar System which has a natural solar origin and confirms the action of “solar summer” throughout the Solar system and alternation of climate conditions in it.  
The content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere largely depends on the World Ocean, and the content of dust depends on volcanic activity and on the rise of aerosols rom and. The amounts of natural flows (carbon dioxide, water vapour, and dust) from the Ocean and land to the atmosphere Min) and from the atmosphere (Mout) to the Ocean and land exceed many times the anthropogenic discharges of these substances into the atmosphere (Mant) (Nigmatulin R.I. The Ocean: climate, resources, and natural disasters. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2010; 80(4): 338-349). 
The overall content of carbon dioxide in the Ocean is 50 times higher than in the atmosphere, and even a weak “breath” of the Ocean can change dramatically the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Natural causes play the most important role in climate variations rather than human activity since natural factors are substantially more powerful. Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations of temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during the glacial/interglacial cycles of at least the past 800-thousand years. Analysis of ice cores shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows the rise temperatures very closely and lagged warmings by 800±400 years. During the glacial/interglacial cycles the peaks of carbon dioxide concentration have never preceded the warmings. Therefore there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a major factor in the warming of the Earth now. Considerable changes of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide always determined by corresponding temperature fluctuations of the World Ocean.
Thus, the quasi-bicentennial variations of the TSI (allowing for their direct and secondary impacts, with the latter being due to the secondary feedback effects) are the major and essential cause of climate changes. The Sun is the main factor controlling the climatic system and even non-significant long-term TSI variations may have serious consequences for the climate of the Earth and other planets of the Solar system. Quasi-bicentennial solar cycles are the key to understanding cyclic changes in both the nature and the society. The sign and value of the energy imbalance in the Earth-atmosphere system over a long time span (excess of incoming TSI accumulated by the Ocean, or its deficiency) determine a corresponding change of the energy state of the system and, hence, a forthcoming climate variation and its amplitude. That is why the Earth’s climate will change every 200±70 years; and it is the result of bicentennial cyclic TSI variation. The observed long-term decline of TSI and forthcoming deep cooling will, first of all, essentially affect climate-dependent natural resources and, hence, influence, in the first place, economic closely connected with state of the climate. The most reasonable way to fight against the coming Little Ice Age is a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production in order to adapt mankind to forthcoming period of deep cooling which will last approximately until the beginning of the 22nd century. Early understanding of reality of the forthcoming global cooling and physical mechanisms responsible for it directly determines a choice of adequate and reliable measures which will allow the mankind, in particular, population of countries situated far from the equator, to adapt to the future global cooling.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Climate consensus cracking under weight of evidence

Climate consensus cracking under weight of evidence

By Larry Bell, 7/12/13

As the President demonstrated once again during his “climate action plan” address in Georgetown, he is not someone ever to allow facts to stand in the way of ideology and Green lobby cronyism. The familiar take-away line is that even more regulation is essential to bludgeon energy producers and consumers to abandon climate-ravaging fossil fuels in favor of heavily taxpayer-subsidized “alternatives.”

Even his staunch allies in all things liberal, the New York Times, appears to have finally recognized that the feverish climate fervor behind these Green grab gambits is overheated. They reported on June 6 that, “The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.” Reporter Justin Gillis went on to admit that the break in temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system,” whereby the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”
Incidentally, on the same day that the NYT wondered where the warming went, the Washington Post breathlessly reported that “Global emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use rose 1.4 percent to 31.6 gigatons in 2012, setting a record and putting the planet on course for temperature increases well above international climate goals.”

They went on to quote the International Energy Agency declaring that “continuing that pace could mean a temperature increase over pre-industrial times of as much as 5.3° C (9° F), which IEA chief economist Faith Birol warned ‘would be a disaster for all countries,’ ”

Yup. Climate Really Changes…Has Before…Will Again.

Should lack of actual recent observed warming be taken to mean that climate doesn’t change, or that warming won’t occur again? No…hardly. But it does suggest a couple of important things. First, and foremost, it means that theoretical climate models upon which crisis claims are entirely based can’t be trusted. Second, if those models can’t be validated, then claims of consensus attributing an unproven crisis to human CO2 emissions, or to any other cause for that matter, certainly don’t warrant legitimacy either.

Isaac Held, a research scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” He’s right about that. As Fred Singer stated in my recent article, “the global climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period.“
Held notes that observations “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years than over the high side.” Citing scientific uncertainty, particularly with regard to cloud influences, he said “It’s like cancer.” Held referred to “many, many research problems” posed by numerous types of clouds, each with their own special properties that might reflect or trap more or less of the sun’s heat.

Can’t Be the Models… Something Must Be Wrong With the Climate!
Mark Maslin and Patrick Austin stated in their June 2012 article in the journal Nature that, for the next UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, “climate scientists face a serious public-image problem.” If the ClimateGate scandals weren’t enough, they observe that, “The climate models they are working with, which use significant improvements in our understanding of complex climate processes, are likely to produce wider rather than smaller ranges of uncertainty in their predictions. To the public and to policymakers, this will look as though the scientific understanding of climate change is becoming less, rather than more, clear.”

D’ya suppose they might have something there?
Maslin and Austin emphasize that a major uncertainty relates to subjective ways models are weighted. They note, for example, that “Every model has its own design and parameterizations of key processes, such as how to include clouds: and every model and its output [in IPCC’s last 2007 assessment] was assumed to be equally valid, even though some perform better than others in certain ways when tested against historic records. The differences between the models will be exacerbated in the 2013 IPCC assessment, because many, but not all, of the models have improved spatial resolution.”

Writing in The New Republic, Nate Cohn shares Maslin’s and Austin’s public climate science confidence concern: “Since 1998, the warmest year of the 20th Century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming: they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections.” He observes that “in the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word ‘uncertainty’ with striking regularity.”

Cohn then unhappily concludes, “The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.” He’s correct in acknowledging an existing and growing public skepticism.

How Trustworthy are those Models? Here’s a Reality Check.
Well-known climatologists Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville compared global mean temperature increases predicted by 73 models from 1979 to present with those actually observed. The observed temperatures were taken from four balloon radiosonde datasets and two satellite datasets which provided virtually identical trends. Less reliable ground readings weren’t used to avoid misleading trend data resulting from land-use changes around recording stations. In addition, the observed temperatures were taken from the tropical troposphere, a region where models project the strongest, least ambiguous greenhouse warming signal.

The results of the modeled versus observed trends revealed a striking contrast. Seventy of the model plots increased sharply over the measurement period, and three increased more modestly. Observed temperatures slogged along a slow incline, overall about two-thirds lower, amounting to a less than 0.25° C increase since the beginning. Many of those disproven models will serve as the basis for IPCC’s next report.

Cohn finally confesses that, “Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty means that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s ‘sensitivity’ to additional greenhouse gas emissions.”

And what are some of those overlapping explanations and uncertainties? Well, even as Cohn points out, there are unfathomable (sorry…pun intended) ocean influences…although sea surface temperatures and the upper heat content didn’t increase over the last decade by enough to account for the “missing heat” that greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system but couldn’t find.
So some scientists (including Kevin Trenberth) have speculated that the heat may have taken a dive into the deep ocean, beneath 700 meters (where lamentably, there are no reliable temperature measurements). And how have they arrived at this hypothesis? Well, perhaps you already guessed the answer. Of course! They developed some hypothetical, unproven guess-work models.

Another theory attributes the lack of warming to an increase in stratospheric aerosol levels since 2002. Although there hasn’t been a large volcanic eruption to blame since 1991, some have correlated this with increased coal burning from South and East Asia.

Worse Yet…Some Very Chilling Prospects.
Yes, and there are other scientists who think that the heat is missing because it never made it into the Earth’s climate system in the first place due to the fact that the sun’s energy output ebbs and wanes. In fact, scientists at Russia’s prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg have stated that solar activity is waning to such an extent that the global average yearly temperature will begin to decline into a very cold and protracted climate phase.

Observatory head Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of the world’s leading solar scientists, member of the Russian Academy of Science, and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, points out that over the last 1,000 years deep cold periods have occurred five times. Each is correlated with declines in solar irradiance much like we are experiencing now with no human influence. “A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity as a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.”
Murry Salby, a climate scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, agrees about the cause and effect reversal: “in the real world, global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, as it is in the model world…in significant part CO2 is controlled by global temperature, as it is in the proxy record.” Salby points out that when models that have been predicting CO2-induced heating differ from direct observations, then they’re wrong, calling practices that claim otherwise a “cult science.”
Climate of Fear for Alarmists…Fewer People are Listening.

There can be little doubt that ongoing climate science consensus bleatings are receiving less and less of a howling response. According to Pew Research, fewer than half of all Americans now believe that scientists agree that warming is mostly due to human activities, down from 59 percent in 2006 to 45 percent today. And according to their annual policy priorities survey released last January, only 28 percent of those polled believed that global warming was a top priority for the President and Congress to address this year (ranking at the bottom of the 21 priorities listed). Four in ten of those who said it should be a top priority were Democrats, compared with only 13 percent of Republicans and about 30 percent of Independents.
Referring to flat temperatures and cooling public trust, The Economist observes that “there’s no getting around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emission treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases.” The article points out that the moralizing stridency behind such policies was founded upon the idea that there is a scientific consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue to rise according to a particular trend and heated debates regarding the economic and social damage that will result. “If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems to be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.”

The Economist concludes: “The reality is that the already meager prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.”

No, that’s really not unreasonable at all. But there are a couple of larger issues. First, will someone at the New York Times please inform the President about this? Even more important…will he really care to know?

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Geoscientist explains why alarmist claims of continued global warming are unscientific political propaganda

Warmism's bellowing dinosaurs

by Dr. John Happs
May 2, 2013  Quadrant Online

In its publication, “The Angry Summer” the Australian Climate Commission (ACC) provides the dramatic headline:
“Earth continues to warm strongly despite sceptics claims.” (1)

In a forlorn attempt to assure the public that the information it provides can be trusted, the government-appointed ACC states on its website:
The Climate Commission was established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change…”  (2)
Independent and reliable?  Then why the following disclaimer:
“This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.” (3)
There are those who dismiss the ACC as little more than a mouthpiece for government propaganda to justify its carbon (dioxide) tax, but its website does provide one excellent piece of advice:
“The Commission recommends that users ….. carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.”
So let’s do just that.
The ACC has trumpeted its message about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW):
“The Earth continues to warm strongly despite sceptics claims.”
It appears that Chief Climate Commissioner and paleontologist Professor Tim Flannery doesn’t seem to know if he should support the ACC’s strong warming message or actually heed real-world evidence. In 2009 he said:
“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.” (4) (author's emphasis)
Cooling over the last 10 years?  Following that public admission, someone at the ACC must have had a quiet word with Flannery since he later did a U-turn, telling Leigh Sales (March 4, 2013):
“If you look at the temperature of the Earth, we have to measure the oceans, the air and the land. And there, we see a continually strong rise in temperature.” (5)
A strong rise in temperature?  I’m sure the scientific community would certainly like to learn more from the ACC about this strong global temperature rise that few seem to be aware of.
It appears that Flannery is no stranger to contradictions. He has even contradicted the ACC about the reliability of findings from the now discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On the one hand, the ACC declares that the IPCC is an authority on climate science:
“The IPCC is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change and is acknowledged by governments around the world, including the Australian Government, as the authoritative source of advice on climate change.” (6)
Yet, in Flannery’s 2005 book, The Weather Makers, he emphatically disagreed:
“The pronouncements of the IPCC do not represent mainstream science, nor even good science, but lowest-common-denominator-science – and of course even that is delivered at glacial speed.” (7)
What is it about the ACC and contradictions? Flannery’s fellow climate commissioner, chemical engineer Professor Will Steffen, is also no stranger to contradictions.  In 2011 he told Andrew Bolt:
“We’ve had very severe droughts before so again we cannot attribute this drought statistically to climate change….”
Someone at the ACC must have also had a quiet word with Steffen. In 2013 we saw another U-turn:
“Australia has long had a highly variable climate of droughts and heavy rains, and this pattern is likely to continue into the future. However, climate change is likely to increase the severity of these extreme weather events…”
Such contradictions tend to generate doubt about the reliability of ACC pronouncements on climate. Let’s return to Flannery’s statement about global temperature:
“If you look at the temperature of the Earth, we have to measure the oceans, the air and the land. And there, we see a continually strong rise in temperature.”
Not only has there been no recent warming of the atmosphere but the oceans, which store most of the heat within the climate system, also show a lack of warming. More than 3,000 Argo buoys (8) descend to depths of 2,000 metres, continually recording ocean temperatures. Contrary to IPCC climate model predictions and Flannery’s statement, Argo data have shown no overall ocean temperature rise since deployment in 2003 (9)
Kuhnert and Mulitza (2011) reported cooling of the Atlantic Ocean surface temperature over the past millennium (10) and passive microwave data from the Windsat, TMI and AMSR-E satellites have shown no warming of sea surface temperatures (SST) since 2003.  Dr Roy Spencer comments:
“I consider this dataset to be the most accurate depiction of SST variability over the last 10+ years due to these instruments’ relative insensitivity to contamination by clouds and aerosols..” (11)
What about continental temperatures? When the ACC tells us that 2012–13 was the hottest summer on record, we are referred to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABOM) as its source of authority. (12)
The ABOM says: 
“Of the 112 locations used in long-term climate monitoring, 14 had their hottest day on record during the summer of 2012/13 – the largest number in any single summer. Record temperatures were also set in two capital cities; Sydney with 45.8°C and Hobart with 41.8°C.”
In contrast, “uncontaminated” satellite records show that the 2012-13 summer was little more than ordinary, ranking 14th warmest out of the last 35. (13). Professor Murray Salby agrees, pointing out that the 2012-13 summer was not exceptional by any means. (14)
The ACC tells us that:
“Hotter temperatures were also recorded in large parts of Argentina, Chile and Brazil, while temperatures in parts of Patagonia were more than 4°C above normal in January.”
Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Patagonia?
No mention of course that the Northern Hemisphere has been experiencing unusually cold weather with the UK having had its coldest December in 120 years in 2011 and the coldest March in 50 years; recent snowfall in the Isle of Man has been the heaviest recorded since 1963; Belfast had its coldest March since 1962 with the Irish Met. Office reporting that temperatures throughout March were the lowest on record nearly everywhere; sheep that were lambing, were buried by deep snow drifts in Wales, the North of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (15)
In 2011, Moscow had its coldest winter in 100 years and the heaviest snowfall in a century in 2013 as did the Ukraine; Belaruse had its worst winter in 150 years; in 2013, Germany experienced its coldest spring since 1963; in 2013, China recorded its lowest temperatures in almost 3 decades; the USA wasn’t spared from a severe winter in 2013 with record snowfalls in Illinois and Missouri; temperatures in Colorado, Kansas and Ohio were 10-30 degrees colder than average throughout March 2013 and the USA overall recorded many record low temperatures.
No doubt ACC alarmists are likely to say that the above examples of record, unseasonal low temperatures result from “normal fluctuations in the weather” whilst elevated summer temperatures in Australia, Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Patagonia clearly point to CAGW.
Interestingly, there is no mention from the ACC about evidence of global temperature stasis from various sources (16) such as:
(a)         UAH temperature data show stasis since 2008;
(b)         GISS temperature data show stasis since 2001;
(c)         Hadcrut4 temperature data show stasis since 2000;
(d)         Hadcrut3 temperature data show stasis since 1997;
(e)         Hadsst2 temperature data show stasis since 1997;
(f)          RSS temperature data show stasis since 1997.  
Temperature stasis has occurred whilst atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase yet the ACC wants us to believe, without any supportive empirical evidence, that carbon dioxide drives global temperature.
Not surprisingly the ACC ignores acceptance of temperature stasis from the following:
(a)         The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has now conceded there has been no global warming for the past 17 years (17);
(b)         Professor Phil Jones from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, where global temperature data are collated, admitted that from 1995 to 2009 there was no statistically significant global warming (18);
(c)         Dr Mojab Latif, climate modeller and IPCC author told more than 1,500 climate scientists at the UN’s World Climate Conference in Geneva we could be entering one or even two decades of cooler temperatures (19);
(d)         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?" (20)
(e)         Climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen says: “There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.” (21)
(f)          Climate scientist Professor Judith Curry said it is clear that the IPCC’s unvalidated computer modeling, which predicted continual warming, is deeply flawed and suggested that all climate scientists should: “Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”. (22)
(g)         Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, says: “The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.” (23)
(h)         The UK Met. Office has released data from 3,000 stations from 1997 through 2012 showing no overall warming during this time. (24)
(i)           The Central England Temperature record (CET), maintained since the middle of the 17th Century, shows a temperature rise of around +0.45oC per century since 1850, marking the end of the Little Ice Age. CET records from 2000 onwards reveal that recent cooling has already negated about 80% of the temperature rise since 1850. (25)
(j)           Activist climate scientist Dr James Hansen in a recent paper concedes: “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” (26)
In a leaked email (#1939) from Dr Peter Thorne of the UK Met. Office to Professor Phil Jones at the CRU we see a frank admission (and warning) about global temperature stasis: 
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.”
Thorne added a further warning:
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” (27)
Political spin? Surely not!
The ACC appears reluctant to communicate any uncertainty about its dire warming predictions and it certainly knows all about“political spin” as it unconvincingly keeps promoting the myth that the “Earth continues to warm strongly despite sceptics’ claims.”  
The ACC not only promotes alarmism about strong global warming but adds dire predictions about flooding, drought and bushfires, all increasing due to CAGW. Tim Flannery told Leigh Sales (4th March 2013):
“Sure. Look, the studies suggest it's a 1/500 chance that this sorta stuff is just normal.” (28)
It’s a pity that Sales didn’t ask Flannery to cite the studies which suggest a 1 in 500 chance and to actually point us to the calculations which substantiate such an outrageous claim.
The ACC’s Angry Summer report tells us:
“Over the last few years the east coast of Australia has experienced a number of intense rainfall events, triggering large floods that have cost lives, damaged property, inundated ecosystems and caused significant dislocation to local and regional communities.”
If the ACC has evidence about imaginary global warming and links to increased flooding, the IPCC doesn’t appear to know about it:
“There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.” (29)
The ACC’s recent comments about more intense rainfall and flooding contradict previous alarmist predictions from the Chief Climate Commissioner. In 2004 Flannery predicted that:
“Perth would be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis.” (30)
Western Australia spent $300 million on a desalination plant.
In 2005, he predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry by 2007, because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties with water.”
A $2 billion desalination plant was built in Sydney. Following a two-year proving period it was shut down in 2012.
In 2007, Flannery predicted that global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants would be needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.
He said:
“Brisbane’s water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”
Queensland spent more than $1 billion on a desalination plant.
In 2008 Flannery said:
“The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
South Australia spent almost 2 billion dollars on a desalination plant which was completed in 2011.
Victoria also built a $5.7 billion desalination plant.
Chief Commissioner Flannery told Sally Sara in 2007:
“Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.” (my emphasis) (31)
In 2007 Flannery reported in New Scientist that:
“Australia’s Coal fired power stations…… emit much of the CO2 that is the ultimate cause of the drying.”
And
 “Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall.”
He continued, allowing advocacy to replace objective science:
“Australia must ratify the Kyoto protocol and agitate globally for a swift and decisive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Our best theories show that Australia is suffering early and disproportionately from climate change. As one of the two renegade developed nations not to have ratified the treaty (the other is the US), and as the world's worst per capita emitter of CO2, some may say that Australia deserves its fate. If it is to save itself from even more severe climate impacts the country needs to change its ways, and fast.” (32)
In contrast to Flannery’s dire predictions, Sheffield et al. (2012) reported in Nature that the world has not seen a general increase in drought over the past 60 years. (33)
It appears that our climate commissioners are trying to outdo the warming hyperbole of other climate “experts” such as Dr David Viner from the CRU, who confidently told British readers in 2000:
"Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
And
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is.” (34)
Vinerism appears to be contageous. Dr Stefan Rahmstorf assured German readers in 2006:
“Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.” (35)
In 2007 the UK’s Met Office meteorologist Wayne Elliott told the BBC:
"It is consistent with the climate change message … It is exactly what we expect winters to be like - warmer and wetter.” (36)
Some crusading celebrities appear to have caught “vinerism” and have promoted this snow-free message. Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
“Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don’t own a sled.” (37)
In his 2005 book The Weather Makers our Chief Climate Commissioner said that global warming would bring worse or more tornadoes to America. This is contradicted by data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which shows a decline in the number of strong to violent tornadoes since the 1950’s (38)
Dr Roy Spencer is emphatic:
“Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.” (39)
Dr Roger Pielke Jr. Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado studies climate change and disasters. He concludes:
“Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way.” (40)
In 2008, Flannery relayed his alarmism about Arctic ice melt to The Guardian, saying:
“We can only project that if this summer's melt trajectory follows recent decades, by September this year the Arctic ice cap will have lost around half of its remaining ice, and be just 2.2m square kilometres.” (41)
It’s a pity that Flannery hasn’t conceded that, on January 2013, Arctic sea ice extent reached 12,901,875 km2 (42)
On September 23rd, 2005 Flannery told Nance Haxton on ABC radio that tropical cyclones had increased in number and intensity around the world. This contradicted the IPCC which reported:
“Low confidence in any observed long-term (ie 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activities, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. Projected: Likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.” (43)
Bjorn Lomborg points out:
“Hurricanes in recent years don't indicate that storms are getting worse. Measured by total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century.” (44)
Pielke Jr. comments about disasters from various causes:
“Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal — no "footprint" — of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.” (45)
Ryan Crompton and John McAneney from Macquarie University have investigated damage to property caused by extreme events. They have produced a data-base of normalized insured disaster losses for Australia and conclude that the long-term average annual normalised insured loss from weather-related disasters is around $1.1 billion. To date, insured losses during the 2012-13 financial year from bushfires in Tasmania and Coonabarabran and flooding in Queensland and New South Wales currently total almost $1 billion. (46)
Hardly evidence of increasing weather-related disasters. If more people choose to build on floodplains, eroding or subsiding coastlines or in the bush, inevitably there will be more disaster-related insurance claims.
Whether it’s global temperature, rainfall, drought, tornadoes, cyclones or even polar bear futures, our Climate Commissioners can’t help lapsing into amateur dramatics. Their best act of course has to be Flannery’s breathtaking announcement that the Earth is a living organism. Whereas we might expect to hear logical, scientific arguments from a Chief Climate Commissioner, Flannery told The Guardian newspaper in April, 2011:
“For the first time, this global super-organism, this global intelligence will be able to send a signal, a strong and clear signal to the earth. And what that means in a sense is that we can, we will be a regulating intelligence for the planet, I’m sure, in the future … And lead to a stronger Gaia, if you will, a stronger earth system.”
He had previously stated this belief on the ABC’s Science Show in January 2011:
“This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.” (47)
Most climate scientists would acknowledge that there are many known factors (some poorly-understood) which influence global and micro-climate, with the likelihood that additional contributing factors have yet to be identified. However, ecologist Professor Leslie Hughes from the ACC appears to know all about such contributing factors and how we can readily control our changing climate. She told Stephanie Smail (25th September, 2012):
“We know what needs to be done because we know what's causing it. If the climate was changing and we didn't know what was causing it, we'd be in a far worse position than we are now. Because it's a human-caused problem, that means that humans can fix it.” (48)
And we are expected to take the Climate Commission seriously. Perhaps Professor Bob Carter best sums up the ACC:
“They do not give good advice on climate. They give incompetent advice on climate.”
And
“They just accept the word of a political organisation, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and pretty it up a little for the Australian context, and then put it into reports that they issue in their own name. (49)
The IPCC and ACC bring to mind the words of Oliver Cromwell when he addressed the English Parliament:
“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Dr John Happs has an academic background in the geosciences. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas

REFERENCES:
 2.           http://climatecommission.gov.au
 7.           Flannery, T. (2001). The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. Grove Press.
11.         http://www.drroyspencer.com
17.    http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/23/pachauri-would-not-admit-over-a-decade-without-warming-when-cfact-asked-him-in-mexico-but-admits-it-now/
19.        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html
20. http://www.iceagenow.com/Another_Prominent_Scientist_Dissents_from_Warming_Fears.htm
21.        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
23. http://iceagenow.info/2012/11/russian-scientist-—-ice-age/
24.        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2BRose0
26. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
27. http://drtimball.com/2011/early-signs-of-cruipcc-corruption-and-cover-up/
 28. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3703207.htm
30.    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/08/damp-prophet-of-doom
 32.    http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/105ns_001.htm
 33.    Sheffield, J., Wood, E.F., Roderick, M.L. 2012. Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature, Nov. 15: 435-8
 34.    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html?oo=102541
35.    http://climatelessons.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/climate-teachers-have-you-seen-any-of.html
37.    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/robert-kennedy-jr-snow-is-so-scarce-today-that-most-virginia-children-probably-dont-own-a-sled/
39.    MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right?          http://www.drroyspencer.com/
41.    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/09/scienceandnat ure.climatechange?oo=102541
44.    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732348          5704578258172660564886.html
46.    http://cstpr.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_ev          ents/munich_workshop/crompton.pdf
 49.    http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/04/07/1226614/311 106-mtp-ep07-carter.pdf