'1 more nail in coffin of global-warming deception'
A new, exhaustive study on precipitation levels over more than 1,000 years shows the assumptions made by the United Nations and other climate-change activists are badly flawed, suggesting human activity may not be having the impact on global climate that so many insist it’s having.
The report from Stockholm University in Sweden examined Northern Hemisphere rainfall statistics over a 1,200-year period. Researchers concluded that extremes between heavy rainfall totals and droughts were more severe centuries ago, before the fossil fuel-based economy ever existed.
“Hopefully, this will be one more nail in the coffin of the great deception that is the global-warming deception,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatologist at the University of Winnipeg who taught classes on global precipitation for some 25 years.
Ball is also the author of multiple books, including “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.” He told WND and Radio America this report comes as no shock to him. In fact, he wrote about the very same issue just five months ago. Ball said the problem amounts in part to willful ignorance on the part of climate-change proponents.
“They list three major greenhouse gases: water vapor, CO2 and methane,” he said. “They then ignore water vapor. They just say the amount humans produce is of no significance, so they just assume it’s constant. That’s a problem.”
He continued, “The second problem is there is inadequate temperature data to build their computer models. The weather data covers only about 25 percent of the world’s surface. How do you build your models on that? The answer is you don’t.”
He said reality has proven the experts wrong at every turn.
“Every single prediction they’ve made with temperature, starting in 1990, has been wrong,” Ball said. “Every one has been wrong. One simple word definition of science is prediction. If you can’t predict, you haven’t got science.”
But as lacking as the data is on temperature levels, Ball said the scientists are even further behind on precipitation.
“The data for precipitation is even worse,” he said. “Measuring rainfall and measuring the water content of snow are some of the most difficult things to do in the weather and climate business.”
Ball said a perfect example of the weak precipitation data could be seen five years ago when scientists tried to predict the impact of monsoons on Africa during the growing season. Half the models predicted a wetter season, and the other half concluded it would be drier.
“Their conclusion was that there weren’t enough precipitation data stations to even meet the minimum requirement of the World Meteorological Association,” he said. “So the lack of data is the serious problem that supports what these people (in Stockholm) are finding.”
According to Ball, this new study also puts the lie to the climate-change premise that temperature is the most important factor when examining where the climate is trending.
“Temperature variation is an issue, but it has to change quite a bit before it comes difficult,” Ball said. “For example, they talk about a two-degree Celsius warming. All you’ve got to do is look at a city that’s just south of you that’s two degrees warmer, and they get along very nicely, thank you.”
He said precipitation is far more important.
“But when you get precipitation change, that impacts flora and fauna and humans tremendously,” he explained.
Ball said 200 climatologists were surveyed in the year 2000 to select the 20 worst natural disasters in the 20th century. Of those 20, scientists picked 11 droughts and five floods.
“So the knowledge of precipitation and its impact is actually more important,” he said.
Ball said the Stockholm report also erodes the credibility of climate-change scientists on another front, namely their contention that rising global temperatures lead to more and more severe droughts.
“They said with global warming, there’ll be more droughts, but that’s counter-intuitive. If you’ve got warmer temperatures, you’ve got more evaporation, more water in the air, therefore fewer droughts,” he said. “Again that illustrates how wrong their thinking is.”
Scientists who believe in human-triggered climate change admit the Stockholm study will intensify the existing debate.
“Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modelers, and present major research opportunities both for modelers and climate scientists,” wrote Matthew Kirby of California State University’s Department of Geological Sciences in response to the study.
Another researcher, James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington, stated the new data suggests the wet-dry extremes will come this century instead of the last one.
That leaves Ball shaking his head.
“They will look for some way around the evidence. They’ll say this is wrong, that’s wrong and so on,” Ball said. “They’ve done that every time. They had a hypothesis, and they accepted it as proven right from the start. Every time evidence came out that contradicted it, they found ways of blunting that.”
He said the most egregious example was after 1998, when temperatures began leveling off but carbon dioxide levels kept rising, in contrast to the belief that the two factors were linked.
“Instead of correcting their science, they changed from global warming to climate change,” Ball said. “This is what they constantly do. They try to blunt the evidence and deflect the evidence because it’s not fitting with their political agenda.”
It’s also apparently not fitting with their financial agenda. Ball contends so many scientists swear by man-caused climate change simply to keep the research dollars pouring in.
“These people, I guarantee you we’ll find out, are very heavily funded by government in this research,” Ball said. “Of course, if you look at Paris and how much money was put into the Green Climate Fund. It’s all driven by money, not by science and the truth.”
He said this was proven by the Australian government in recent years.
“What the Australian government said was, ‘You’re telling us the science is settled. Well fine. We’ll cut off all the funding to the research.’ Of course everybody scrambled, ‘Oh, no no no. Hold on a minute here,'” Ball said.
( Source )