C3

 About C3   Charts/Images  Videos  Climate Blogs  Quotes   'C3'via Email  **Twitter

x
xx xx xx

 To watch a larger version of video, right-click on any of the above and choose "Watch on YouTube."

Medieval Warming & Little Ice Age Also Had Their El Niño Moments, Researchers Discover

Read here. More often than not, we think of El Niño (or La Niña) events as contemporary climatic conditions. But researchers have determined that the ENSO climate behaviors were also important in climate history, on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.

[It should be remembered that climate models are incapable of correctly predicting these events despite their massive influence on the world's climate. After spending $79 billion on climate research that's a pretty sad statement.]

"The nine researchers conclude that "the finding of similar century-scale variability in climate archives from two El Niño-sensitive regions on opposite sides of the tropical Pacific strongly suggests that they are dominated by the low-frequency variability of ENSO-related changes in the mean state of the surface ocean in [the] equatorial Pacific." And that "century-scale variability," as they describe it, suggests that global warming typically tends to retard El Nino activity, while global cooling tends to promote it."

The Problem With Geo-Engineering: It Could Destroy The Climate As We Know It

Read here. As Copenhagen and IPCC climate science have imploded into a non-fixable, political mess, others are now turning to geo-engineering schemes in order to save the world from climate change. Since the world's climate is constantly changing naturally, this seems like a fool's errand - bound to waste effort, time and money in big numbers. In addition, trying to actually change the climate could actually cause even worse conditions than those that one wants to stop, for example:

"Even so, while climate science is slowly unraveling the mysteries of how the atmosphere works, other scientists who style themselves “geoengineers” are busy hatching schemes to inject aerosols into the stratosphere in an effort to cool the planet....This geoengineering suggestion is based, naturally, on climate models. The same models that have been shown to be unable to predict climate change correctly even without humans intentionally messing with the stratosphere....A change in incoming solar radiation [artificially blocking sunlight] that exactly offsets the warming effect of greenhouse gases is expected to overcompensate their effect on the hydrological cycle. So if temperature is brought back to pre-industrial levels, global rainfall totals could decline well below the levels of the early nineteenth century. The Asian and African summer monsoons on which billions of people's livelihoods rely could potential be derailed by geoengineering....geoengineering has the potential to cause as much international tension as nuclear proliferation—perhaps even more."

So, what's wrong with just doing a little test experiment just to see if it works?

"There are, however, a few problems with this scheme:

• No matter what the results, it would be difficult to stop such an experiment quickly.
• All model simulations conducted so far indicate that upon ending the project, the climate would warm much more rapidly than if no geoengineering had been conducted in the first place.
• People being what they are, the geoengineering infrastructure, including different industrial interests involving many jobs, would lobby to keep the program going.
• No stratospheric aerosol observing system exists to monitor the effects of any in testing so judging the results would be difficult.
• Finally, local impacts are particularly difficult to predict."

W. Virginia Stalagmite Provides Evidence That Past U.S. Droughts Solar Caused, Peer-Research Finds

Read here. As with most major climatic changes, solar influences are the major driver, not trace gases, such as CO2. Using Sr/Ca ratios and δ13C data obtained from stalagmite of Buckeye Creek Cave in West Virginia, USA, researchers reviewed 7,000 years of N. American hydro-climate. Researchers discovered that drought conditions followed the solar irradiance cycles of 200 and 500 years, approximately, in addition to even longer solar oscillations.

"The five researchers conclude by stating that their findings "corroborate works indicating that millennial-scale solar-forcing is responsible for droughts and ecosystem changes in central and eastern North America and that their high-resolution time series "provide much stronger evidence in favor of solar-forcing of North American drought by yielding unambiguous spectral analysis results."

From 2008, Left-Leaning Environmental Expert: "Climate science is increasingly looking like a Rube Goldberg device"

Read here. Little did this expert realize his words would be so prophetic. Despite it now being obvious that there is something seriously wrong with climate science, few non-skeptics had the temerity to say so. His 2008 advice to those who controlled the "consensus" science should have been listened to:

"I am sure that the consensus guys will explain all of this for us, and probably throw in some character assassination and accusations of shamefulness for extra credit. But the general point should not be missed — science does not work in a neat linear fashion moving from uncertainties to certainties. There is plenty of room for skepticism in discussions of science, including water cooler conversations and on blogs, and even the peer reviewed literature. We want people asking why, and looking for inconsistencies. In fact, such skepticism often drives new knowledge."

Are Liberal "Cheeseheads" Really This Stupid? Wisconsin Democrats Plan To Enact California-Like CO2 Standards

Read here. Some day, anthropologists will conduct studies on the popular delusions that 21st century U.S. liberal/leftist/Democrats embraced (were possessed by?). If Wisconsin Democrats were to jam this down the throats of their citizens, the world impact by 2050 will possibly reach 2/1,000's (0.0019) of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures - spending billions for nothing, typical of the moronic Left. (click on image to enlarge)

Despite overwhelming evidence that the AGW hypothesis has failed, and despite overwhelming evidence that the CO2-based climate science has been corrupted, Democrat politicians keep pushing CO2 polices that harm their citizens' economic welfare and everyday freedoms.

What's a Wisconsin "cheesehead" look like?

Is Melting Tundra & Permafrost The CO2 "Tipping Point" of Runaway Warming? Peer-Research Says No

Read here and here. As with every unsubstantiated, speculative prediction made by alarmists and climate models, there is a grain of truth regarding melting tundra/permafrost releasing stored carbon dioxide. But researchers have discovered that when these melted areas are thawed, the explosion of new growth of vegetation becomes a positive CO2 sink that sequesters carbon dioxide in greater quantities than that released from the thaw. So instead of permafrost melting being a positive warming feedback, it actually becomes a negative feedback - funny how the climate always seems to do that in the end.

"In light of these compelling observations, it would appear that even if global warming were to accelerate and reach a tipping point that led to the demise of much of the world's permafrost, the subsequent "terrestrialization" of these regions would actually lead to more carbon being stored in the soils and vegetation of these parts of the world, rather than -- as climate alarmist claim -- more being lost."

And what about the release of methane (CH4) from melting?

"Delisle throws in another fast ball regarding methane (CH4) at the end of the article by stating “A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”"

Just another reason why climate models are not an accurate representation of how the real-world climate actually works.

Asian Temperature History From 2,300 Year Old Trees: Medieval Period Hotter Than Present

Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have worked mightily at eradicating the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age but this fabricated interpretation of historical temperatures is continually challenged by an increasing accumulation of actual scientific evidence. The latest peer-research from China is a study of ancient tree-trunks that provide 2,300+ years of tree-ring evidence, which clearly indicates the Medieval Warming was much warmer than modern temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)

"Zhang et al. conclude that their proxy climate data "reveal that the North Atlantic MWP and the LIA were accompanied by climate changes on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau," while their comparison with Esper et al.'s data indicates that their data are also well correlated with long tree-ring chronologies from much of the Northern Hemisphere. The research team thus provides important evidence for the broad geographical reach of both the MWP and the LIA."

Additional historical temperature charts and modern temperature charts

Will "Peer-Reviewed" Become Known As The "Science of Idiocracy"? Should Anyone Believe Scientists Any Longer?

Read here. The "prestigious" medical journal, Lancet, has published bogus studies before but their latest admission that the 'vaccines cause autism' study they published (over a decade ago) was not worthy is a real eye-opener. Think about it - how many children have died from this idiotic science because of the fear it instilled in parents about getting their children vaccinated.

Since a major journal has finally taken the correct step to denounce bogus science they published, is it not the perfect time for journals such as Nature, Science and the New Scientist to do a similar and needed housekeeping regarding bogus science associated with the politically correct global warming agenda? Would it really be that hard for the journals to finally recognize (what everyone else knows) the sham that the original "hockey stick" represents and all of its associated progeny? Is it time for the major science journals to reconsider how they conduct the climate science peer-reviewed process so that major data cherry-picking, data manipulation and statistical fraud are recognized and challenged well before these studies get in print?

Obviously, the science journals represent a huge part of the bogus science problem. The "peer-reviewed" moniker has become a joke for the layperson, which certainly is not a good attribute to achieve. But journals are only part of the the problem. Unfortunately, scientists are becoming ever more notorious for publicizing issues and future events as calamitous, sure thing, predicted outcomes that makes it difficult for the journals, let alone the MSM, to ignore. Often the scientists' public relations effort of promoting fear and catastrophe is enough to get the journals interested instead of conducting their efforts in the needed role as skeptics.

Here are some examples of older/newer fears and catastrophes predicted by scientists that should have been exposed as bogus or way too extreme from day one:

 1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798
 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865
 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883
 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928
 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934
 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939
 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945
 8 DDT and cancer 1962
 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968
10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970
11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970
12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971
13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972
14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974
15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976
16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979
17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985
18 Listeria in cheese 1985
19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985
20 Salmonella in eggs 1988
21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990
22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996
23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999
24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004
25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005
26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008

"None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate. Based on analyses to date, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)."

Latest Peer-Reviewed Research: Sweden's Medieval Warming Hotter Than Today's Temperatures

Read here. A stalagmite from a cave in northwestern Sweden confirms that both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age temperatures were substantially different than our modern temperatures.

"Sundqvist et al. write that "the stable isotope records show enriched isotopic values during the, for Scandinavia, comparatively cold period AD 1300-1700 [which they equate with the Little Ice Age] and depleted values during the warmer period AD 800-1000 [which they equate with the Medieval Warm Period]." And as can clearly be seen from the figure above, the two δ18O depletion "peaks" (actually inverted valleys) of the Medieval Warm Period are both more extreme than the "peak" value of the Current Warm Period, which appears at the end of the record."

(click image to enlarge)

 

Again, the evidence keeps mounting against the fabricated IPCC temperature histories (i.e. the "hockey stick") by the infamous Climategate scientists. There is no actual evidence supporting that current tempertatures are above the Medieval Period other than those studies used by the IPCC that have cherry-picked selected data and/or heavily massaged the data using non-professional, very unusual statistical methods.

Other historical charts and modern temperature charts

The Siberian/Polar Ural Larch Treeline: Evidence That Arctic Areas Were Warmer Than Present

Read here. The past treeline of high latitude northern areas are excellent indicators of historical temperatures. The higher a treeline it indicates that the growing season was warmer and longer. As the red curve in the below representation indicates, the modern treeline is well below the past treeline of the Siberian Larch (Larix sibirica). Also note the estimated past Arctic Ocean shoreline some 10,000 years ago. That much farther north shoreline was prior to the interglacial global warming that melted the ice sheets and glaciation over thousands of years. (click image to enlarge)

"The treeline was at its highest elevation [Polar Ural Mtns.] during the MWP [Medieval Warming Period] between ca AD 900 and 1300 when it reached 340 m [meters]. Following that time the treeline descended to approximately 270 m during the LIA and then ascended to its present elevation of approximately 310 m during the recent warming of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries....Thus, some areas that were forested or supported sparse trees during the MWP remain treeless at present. In effect, at the Russian sites studied, the impact of twentieth century warming has not yet compensated fully for the mortality and range constriction caused by the cold temperatures of the LIA [Little Ice Age]. These results are similar to observations in some other northern treeline regions such as uplands in eastern Quebec and interior Labrador where Picea mariana (P. Mill.) B. S. P. and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss trees remain below their pre-LIA limits despite recent warming."

Does Human CO2 Cause An Increase In Droughts? Peer-Research Provides An Answer: No

Read here. As every celebrity who's managed to graduate from grade-school knows, man-made CO2 will cause droughts across the globe causing all types of misery and suffering, needlessly. These droughts will be more massive and more frequent. But we can stop the droughts if everyone just drove a Prius and the Senators hurried up and voted for "cap & trade" that President Obama really needs to fight those nasty droughts.

Ah....the minds of children, aren't they just precious?

Fortunately, for the rest of us, as with everything else claimed to be caused by CO2 induced global warming and climate change, the scary drought hype is just that: big HYPE.

Recently, industrious researchers went to work to examine the drought hype claims. They identified 296 large droughts across the world between 1950 and 2000. They found that the mid-1950's had the most drought activity, not the end of the 20th century as expected by Al Gore and the celebrities.

"If anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they are supposed to produce are responsible for catastrophic droughts, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently declared them to be, it seems strange indeed that the global drought activity of the last half of the 20th century was greatest at the start of that period, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures were far less than they were at its end."

The Sins of Biofuels: Stupid U.S. Policy Destroys Nature, Plus Causes CO2 Emissions To Increase

Read here. The U.S. and other countries passed legislation that provides incentives for the increased production of biofuels (e.g. ethanol, etc.). Per usual, the politicians went off half-cocked based on "consensus" science that when scrutinized, fails to pass the bogosity smell test. Based on imagined fears and "persuasive" lobbying, the political hacks chose the worst course for nature and the climate.

"Marshes, swamps and bogs emit about 1.3 billion tonnes of CO a year as a result of human activity that drains them. If those dried out former swamps catch fire that amount can double and large amounts of aerosols can be emitted as well. With governments offering subsidies for growing biofuel crops the question is, how do we stop people from draining the world's remaining wetlands?"

"...fires are deliberately started to free up land for agriculture. The sustained burning of biomass not only releases the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane but also large quantities of carbon monoxide and particulate matter....during major fire years the air quality in Indonesia is many times worse than that in the worlds' most polluted cities. Given the new found importance of aerosols on atmospheric warming the problem has become even more pressing."

"Now, a series of recent studies is underscoring another risk: A widespread shift toward biofuels could pinch water supplies and worsen water pollution. In short, an increased reliance on biofuel trades an oil problem for a water problem....Now it seems that other requirements of biofuel manufacture can place an even greater strain on limited water supplies. Agriculture already consumes 70% of all global freshwater withdrawn worldwide, depleting soil nutrients, draining underground aquifers and promoting desertification."

This is a classic example of politicians providing idiotic incentives for creating the worst kind of land-use anthropogenic climate impacts.

What Has Caused The Three Decade Anarctica Sea-Ice Expansion? The "Climate Experts" Can Only Guess

Read here. Based on satellite observations, the sea ice extant has been increasing at a rate close to 1% per year. Researchers speculate that ozone has caused increase but a climate model suggests growth is within natural climate variability. The CO2-AGW theory predicts that Antarctica should be warming and the sea ice pack should be shrinking.

"The only thing we can conclude at this point in time, therefore, is that for some still-unproven reason, and in spite of the supposedly unprecedented increases in mean global air temperature and CO2 concentration that the planet has experienced since the late 1970s, Antarctica sea ice extent has stubbornly continued to just keep on growing."

Was It Warmer At Northern Latitudes During Medieval Period? The Treelines Don't Lie, Unlike The IPCC Tree-Rings

Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists became completely possessed in proving the Medieval Warming Period did not exist. This caused them to rely on non-professional, highly questionable statistical methods and obvious fraudulent tree-ring data manipulation in order to "prove" that the Medieval Warming really did not exist, despite the preponderance of actual historical writings about that actual warming era. In addition to the written recorded history of the Medieval Warming, scientists have documented hundreds of sites, globally, confirming the warming during the Medieval Period. One such site was in northern Russia, where it has been established that the treeline existed at a much higher elevation during Medieval times, due to the unprecedented warmth. (click on image to enlarge)

Did Antarctica Have A Medieval Warming Period? The Seals & Penguins Tell The Story

Read here and here. It is a common refrain from global warming alarmists that the Medieval Warming Period was only a regional phenomenon, experienced only in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily in Europe. They continue to state this despite the scientific evidence supporting that the Medieval Warming, and other climatic periods, were world-wide events that affected different areas, at slightly different times and period extent spans.

From Antarctica, peer-reviewed research has studied the remains of mummified elephant seals from the Ross Sea area, which the seals used once as a habitat and breeding ground. Not any longer. The cold after Antarctica's warming drove the seals away, plus the sea pack ice caused the Adelie penguins to move to warmer areas.

"Hall believes the presence of colonies along Victoria Land as recently as a thousand years ago indicate the region was warmer than it is today"...."The ice regime remains too severe for either elephant seals or penguins to occupy the southern VLC today.”

“We’re interested in them because they shouldn’t be there....Elephant seals don’t live in the Ross Sea today"....The most recent warming period occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 years ago, Hall noted. “We have pretty good evidence of that time period”

"Denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period borders on silly, for as we see in this article (along with hundreds of others), the planet was so warm 1,000+ years ago that elephant seals moved south to a much warmer Antarctica. The case is occasionally made that the Medieval Warm Period was a European event, or maybe an event confined to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The skin, hair, and mummified offspring of elephant seals found in Antarctica clearly show that the entire planet was substantially warmer than today 1,000+ years ago."

The NASA/GISS "Warmest" Decade Meme: How Does It Stack Up To Previous Decades? Not So Hot

In recent news, NASA/GISS has been trumpeting that the decade ending 2009 was the warmest ever (since 1880) to much fanfare and the continuous repetition by the MSM reporters. For many, GISS claiming anything about their heavily manipulated and fabricated temperatures generates a natural skeptical response. For other knowledgeable persons, the warming is of no surprise since the Earth has been warming from the cessation of the Little Ice Age. It is more than obvious the latest decade should be the warmest based on, well....the obvious - it just naturally happens.

As the GISS scientists seem to be constantly propagandizing that this day, this week, this month, this year, this whatever is always the "warmest" and is thus leading to "unprecedented" temperature change and "runaway" temperature trends, then this past "warmest" decade, when put into context, should clearly indicate all these fears are legitimate, not hype. To test for the hype hypothesis, we use the NCDC global decadal temperatures (instead of the GISS maladjusted temperatures) and respective CO2 level per cent changes below. It's no surprise to skeptics that a different picture is revealed versus the B.S. that GISS and the MSM are constantly shoveling. (click image to enlarge)

As the graph depicts, the "warmest" decade does not quite cut the thresholds of "unprecedented" or the "runaway" propaganda that is being constantly pushed. And, it's no wonder the GISS folks really don't want to tell the MSM about the nasty warm 1930's which has a larger temperature increase, or the the 1950's, or even the second decade of the 20th century, which also had a hefty temperature increase - unfortunately, it ruins the whole meme about the past decade. Another interesting aspect of the chart is the relationship between percentage increases for CO2 levels and actual temperature changes across a decade. As one can observe, there really is no relationship, which is a definite embarrassment for GISS management and the bogus "human CO2 is causing temperatures to increase" AGW hypothesis.

Researchers Find That NYC Urban Heat Island Can Be Up To 8°C Warmer Than Rural Areas

Read here. If you're not yet aware of this interesting "scientific" response, global warming scientists will go out of their way to flippantly dismiss the substantial 'Urban Heat Island' (UHI) effect. Why? Well.....because UHI totally overwhelms any measurable impact from CO2 emissions, and, by the way, it undercuts their desired funded-research, which is dependent on the AGW hypothesis. In the case of New York City, the UHI is absolutely huge, which is indeed a human impact, just not the favored CO2-caused impact.

"...the heat island signal, measured as the difference between the urban core and the surrounding rural surface air temperature readings taken at National Weather Service stations, averages ~4°C on summer nights (Kirkpatrick and Shulman, 1987; Gedzelman et al., 2003; Gaffin et al., 2008)," with the greatest temperature differences typically being sustained "between midnight and 0500 Eastern Standard Time (EST; Gaffin et al., 2008)." And on a day that they studied quite intensively (14 August 2002), they report that at 0600 EST, "the city was several degrees warmer than the suburbs, and up to 8°C warmer than rural areas within 100 km of the city." 

For another look at UHI, but this time on the left coast, check out this link.

NOAA Finally Admits That Climate Models Have Been Totally Wrong About Water Vapor: Instead of Increasing, It's Decreased By 10%

Read here. The global warming scientists, major climate research centers, the IPCC, environmental NGOs, and global warming activists and pundits have all claimed that the "robust & rigorous" climate models prove that when human CO2 increases, then global atmospheric temperatures will have to increase, which will then cause surface water evaporation to increase, that subsequently causes water vapor in the atmosphere to increase, which finally sets in motion a positive feedback system that causes all the previous items to even increase more, ad nauseum. Unfortunately, the "expert" climate scientists are now discovering those models might not have it quite right, since atmospheric water vapor is doing the exact opposite of what the climate models predicted! Gee, what a surprise.

"“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study....Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown."

Another UN Agency & Its Models Totally Botch The Science: WHO's Incompetence Rivals IPCC's

Read here. They predicted swine flu mayhem for 2009. Up to 50 million would die, based on their infectious disease models. This prediction was wrong by a huge factor of 3,500 times. Only 14,412 died - that's less than a typical year for normal flu.

"WHO calls swine flu critics “irresponsible.” Kind of like the IPCC calls global warming critics “deniers""...."The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible”...."The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog based in Strasbourg, France, recently recommended that the EU investigate WHO’s swine flu pandemic declaration to see if the health agency acted under undue influence."

This sounds awful familiar to those closely monitoring the hapless IPCC situation. In the bizarro world of the UN, doing science badly and doing corruption well is the accepted modus operandai by world leaders. How else to explain why the UN is still allowed to conduct any serious activities that have real consequences. Cut off their U.S. funding and ship the lot of them to Dubai.

Is Human CO2 Causing Ocean Islands To Be Swamped By Rising Seas? Short Answer: Nope

Read here. Actually, the islands we refer to in the headline are more accurately coral atolls, as explained in the article. We've done postings on atolls, coral reefs and oceans rising before but this article is the best compilation of pertinent information we've read - it is definitely a 'keeper'.

"What can be done to turn the situation around for the atolls? From the outside, not a whole lot. Stopping the Czechs from burning coal won’t do a damned thing. From the outside, we can offer only assistance. The work needs to occur on the atolls themselves. There are, however, a number of low-cost, practical steps that atoll residents can take to preserve and build up their atolls, and protect the fresh water lens. In no particular order these are:"

Read the linked article for the solutions the islanders need to take themselves, instead of their blaming others and seeking monetary handouts.

BTW, this is another example of the bogus climate alarmist science that the IPCC and certain  climate scientists have promulgated. For fame, glory and riches, these scientists are causing needless lawsuits instead of focusing the attention of politicians on the real solutions to maintaining Earth's health, be it atolls or the Amazon or other. Eventually, historians may well view the "global warming" fraudulent science as a crime against humanity.

Climate Scientists & Obama Kill Space Exploration For America: "Global Warming" Steals A Nation's Soul

Read here. This is the future Obama envisions for America. A country's leadership so fearful of the trace gas CO2 that it is willing to sacrifice a nation's future greatness......

For those scientists, engineers and astronauts who gave us hope, inspiration and greatness, thank you - you will be missed. For those climate scientists who spread fear, uncertainty and scientific fraud, a day of reckoning will arrive for you. For those scientists who allowed science and research funding to be hijacked without your demanding scientific integrity, your missing-in-action has been noted. For Democrats up for election in 2010, the fall from the stars and greatness has happened on your watch - "failure is an option" has become your slogan.

Source of image on left. (click on images to enlarge)

New Hurricane Model May Even Be Worse Than Previous Hurricane Models: Another Xbox Simulation Failure?

Read here. From the "experts" that predicted more hurricanes back in 2005, a group of hurricane modelers create a new model that concludes there will be less hurricanes (about 33% less) in the Atlantic basin, but the number of intense storms will increase by 81% due to CO2-caused global warming. One would hope that these continuous attempts to predict future hurricane activity and intensity would improve, but this new hurricane simulator seems to have some very fundamental problems:

"But a closer look at the results shows that this model-based result is produced by a hurricane model which under-simulates the frequency of strong storms in today’s climate. And that, despite the projected increase in intense hurricanes, the frequency of those storms projected by the model to occur by the end of the 21st century is considerably less than the frequency of intense hurricanes actually observed in the current climate. If the model doesn’t work for the present, why should we trust it for the future?....The bottom line is that if a model doesn’t perform very well in a particular area of interest—in this case in simulating the observed frequency of intense hurricanes—then that model shouldn’t be considered a reliable estimator of how the characteristics of that area of interest will change in the future."

Finland's Treelines Establish Past Warmer Periods In High North: Researchers Confirm Current Temps Cooler

Read here. Treeline reconstructions are a superior means to determine overall long-term temperature changes versus tree-ring widths. Using treelines, researchers can determine past growth areas for tree species.

Finnish researchers using pollen samples and fossils were able to reconstruct the Scots Pine tree growth areas as far back as 6,000 years before the present. These trees prefer warmer temperatures than today's High North offers, but in the past their range extended much farther north indicating temperatures were at times some 2.0+ Celsius degrees higher. (click on image to enlarge)

"The inferred minimum shift in mean July temperatures between 8300 and 4000 cal. yr BP in Finnish Lapland suggests a ca. + 2.5 °C warmer climate. Until 3000 cal. yr BP, the results indicate a shift of ca. +1 °C in mean July temperatures....During the Medieval Warm Period the reconstructed minimum shift in mean July temperature was ca. + 0.5 °C."

Using Latest Technology, Experts Calculate That Sea Level Increase Rate At 6 Inches/Century

Read here. As any IPCC "scientist" (and celebrity) can tell you, the world has been dangerously warming, making the glaciers and Greenland ice sheet melt, which is causing the oceans to rise really, really fast!

Wrong, again! The newest research, based on the best technology available, has the ocean rise at 1.5mm per year, which translates to 6 inches per century. The IPCC climate models and experts predicted much faster increases but as we now know, the models have been perfect models of failure.

"The two U.S. researchers say their "new analysis of the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 used corrected Jason-1 and Envisat altimetry observations of total sea level, improved upper ocean steric sea level [data] from the Argo array, and ocean mass variations inferred from GRACE gravity mission observations." This effort yielded success, as they closed the global sea level rise budget by finding that the sum of steric sea level and ocean mass components had a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/year over the period of their analysis"

Can The IPCC Ship Be Salvaged? Not Likely, As It Keeps Taking Hits Below The Water Line

Read here, here and here. Three very interesting reads on the IPCC but each on a different topic. After reading, you'll wonder like many how the IPCC can be allowed to survive after politicizing climate science to the point where the entire science community has been severely harmed.

I once held hard and physical science scientists in high esteem. That is the case no longer and I wonder how many others have had their respect for scientists stripped.

The WWF's Great Himalayan Snow Job: Caught In Act By Skeptics Way Back In 2005

Read here. Well before the IPCC's 2007 report, the World Wildlife Fund was promulgating their bogus glacier stories to the gullible MSM and politicians:

"On March 14 [2005], Reuters shipped a story about rapid recession of the Himalayan glaciers—the largest nonpolar ice mass in the world. They quoted from a World Wildlife Fund press release stating “Himalayan glaciers are among the fastest retreating glaciers globally due to the effects of global warming....WWF timed its press release before a two-day “Energy and Environmental Ministerial Conference” in London. At this meeting the United States was (predictably) blasted because it won’t commit economic suicide by adopting the Kyoto Protocol on global warming."

What's interesting is that the IPCC had the scientific evidence that the WWF story was a massive "global warming" snow job - perpetrated by an activist environmental group that is not known to be on friendly terms with scientific truth. Temperature data from the glacier area published by the IPCC at the time showed temperatures had been trending down for over 130 years. Yes, the glaciers were retreating but they were doing so despite the obvious cooling in the region - the same phenomenon has been witnessed in other regions of the world.

"All of this leads to an obvious conclusion. Southern Greenland, Glacier National Park and the Himalayan glaciers are on there way out, with little or no nudging needed from people. They’re relics of the big ice age that ended 11,000 years ago. It’s too bad, though, that in the fight to hype global warming, the truth is also rapidly becoming another relic."

Extreme Warming In U.S. - Research Finds The Warming Extremes Well Before The 20th & 21st Centuries

Read here. The huge continental mass of the U.S. continues to exhibit significant cooling in the present. The proclaimed, "unprecedented" CO2-caused warming still does not exceed past known warm temperatures of the central United States and Canada.

"For a broad swath of the midsection of the United States stretching from the center of Texas all the way to the U.S. border with Canada (and probably some distance beyond), the supposedly unprecedented warming of the 20th century (according to claims of the world's climate alarmists) was not unprecedented at all, having likely been surpassed one thousand, two thousand and four to five thousand years ago, when there was much less CO2 in the air than there is today."

The Total Failure of The IPCC & Elites: The Public Relations Path They Chose Was Guaranteed To Fail, In Hindsight

Since November of 2009, the perpetual failings of the global warming and climate change science/activism has been front and center. Incredibly, week after week we hear of new revelations that the IPCC science is fabricated or non-existent, and that the activism has been extensively corrupted by individuals seeking enrichment, be it financial or power. It's now reaching an amazing crescendo. And just when you think it's cresting, another flood of bad science brings it to a new level, almost on a daily basis.

How did the world's elites manage to so successfully botch their beloved CO2-caused global warming is evil initiative?

In hindsight, the awarding of a Nobel to Al Gore was a public relations tipping point, or for us Americans, a point in time when a "jumping of the shark" occurs. It was a definitely a shark-moment, an awakening, and we chose to challenge the bogus "consensus." Thank you, Nobel prize committee. We owe you big time - it's certainly the Nobel prize that keeps on giving.

Latest Peer-Reviewed Research Uses Bristlecones To Confirm Medieval Warming In California Mountains

Read here. As many will recognize the tree, the California bristlecones are notoriously used by hockey stick scientists because they will, well,....always produce a nice looking hockey stick, which global warming scientists are enamored with. This has become common knowledge and well documented, and has discredited much of the past research that used these trees. With that said, one can see that the below graph does not have a "hockey stick" and it does have a Medieval Warming Period.

"This history began in the midst of the Medieval Warm Period, which extended, in our estimation, to approximately AD 1430. During this interval there were several periods when tree-ring width indices were more than double those experienced over the final decades of the 20th century; and in a couple of instances they were even three times greater."

Bristlecone fans wonder why no hockey stick? Why a Medieval Warming Period? (click on image to enlarge)

This study is based on a new and much larger sample of bristlecone trees. The previous bristlecone research that was used in all the prior hockey stick studies dates back to the 1980s. There has been no other explanations as to why the new data has significantly different results from the original bristlecone study. (This new study is not a multiproxy, but a study based solely on bristlecones.)

Multi-proxy research authors who are paid to find global warming continue to use old bristlecone data from the 80's for their new research instead of this latest bristlecone data. Surprised?

Propaganda By The Climategate "Team": Climate Research Was Only One Small Aspect of Their Duties

Read here. This book covered many of the "Team's" efforts (duties?) that resulted in corrupting the peer-review process; evading compliance with FOIA requests that they were obligated to comply with; and, "hiding" what their research data actually indicated about warming during the late 20th century. The book did not cover though the Team effort to produce propaganda supporting global warming alarmism meme. The Climategate emails do reveal that effort (duties?) also.

"Several of the recently leaked Climategate e-mails reveal backstage manipulations to produce a propaganda tool, the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate, intended to be unveiled at the Kyoto Climate Conference. Members of the Jones Gang from East Anglia University organized efforts to get just about anyone to sign this statement to push up the numbers. In an e-mail dated 9 October 1997, Dr. Joseph Alcamo admonishes other members of the Jones Gang to forget credentials and just get signatures."

The most recent scientist(s) propaganda effort to influence policymakers is presently unraveling with the new Glaciergate expose. The safest conclusion at this juncture is not to trust any scientist who expresses confidence ("consensus") in the science of CO2-AGW. They appear all to have been corrupted in some manner and degree.

The Worst & The Dimmest: Gross Incompetence At The Highest Levels of Climate Science - UK's CRU

Just finished reading Climategate: The CRUtape Letters, by T. Fuller & S. Mosher. If you're at all interested in the Climategate fiasco, the book is a fascinating behind the scenes look, via the leaked email correspondence and supplemented by related public blog postings. Definitely a buy if the nitty-gritty of corrupting science sounds appealing. It was a good read and learned much that I was unaware of previously, especially the context. For example, the information in the book helped clarify the machinations the IPCC went in violating their own policies regarding the "Jesus" paper that Bishop Hill had previously written about.

On a different topic, within the book one paragraph really struck me as indicative of the wholesale incompetence of the top scientists and administrators of the "premier" climate research center, the UK's CRU:

"The science behind calculating a global average is trivial. It is more properly an accounting task. But Jones and CRU appear to have made a total hash of the record keeping. If their responses to FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests are to be believed, they don't have a list of the sites they currently use. They don't have a version control system that allows them to reconstruct what they have done over the years. And they can' tell the ultimate source of their data. Their work cannot be double-checked."

Having a business background in technology, and specifically a database start up, the CRU's total lack of professional data management, redundancy and security is truly appalling. Basing any trillion dollar economic, environmental and energy policies on such gross incompetence and negligence is mind-boggling. A major house cleaning is in order, with new management put into place, and a 3rd party, comprehensive forensic audit of the temperature data being accomplished, at a minimum. Policymakers need to ascertain whether the existing temperature data is actually reliable and accurate.

There is much more to the book than just the flat-out incompetence, but it does suggest an immediate need for the climate researchers to be removed from also being keepers of the climate data - they can't be trusted, for any number of reasons, including incompetent management. Read the book.

NASA Admits No CO2-AGW Warming In USA; Why Is World Warming and Not U.S.?

Read here and here. Check out these links showing contents of NASA emails that were recently released under a 'Freedom of Information Act' request, which speak to zero or little AGW warming in the U.S. Yet at the same time as these insider emails are getting scrutinized, the MSM is trumpeting the PR releases from U.S. climate agencies screaming that the 2000's were the warmest global decade evaaaar! Of course, the climate agencies and press are not about to ballyhoo the significantly cooler temps over the last few years in the U.S., as the below chart indicates (click to enlarge):

But the "warmest" decade makes the press go on a tear! Definitely a disconnect, which begs even more scrutiny.

Now, what would really be both 'hot' and 'cool' at the same time is if some reporter had just a teensy-weensy bit of intellectual curiosity about the discrepancy between U.S. and global temperatures and asked the simple, "WTF"? Here's a story that an enterprising reporter can own and run with for a long time, especially since the skeptic blogs have done so much of the grunt work. Let's see if we can provide the enterprising reporter with some starting points and answers to her basic questions....

1.) "Why is global warming not affecting the U.S.?"

Maybe because the rest of the world doesn't have the brains to at least maintain a decent set of thermometers to record temperatures accurately? Or, is it because the U.S. climate agencies let the climate reporting network slip into disrepair and then into oblivion, despite $70+ billion spent on climate research?

2.) "What's that got to do with U.S. temperatures?"

Well, Ms. Reporter....see the U.S. has a bunch of thermometers recording temperatures (see the red and blue dots on map) but most other countries have a few, or even none. Take Bolivia for example. This high, cool mountainous country has no thermometers it seems, thus NASA and the NCDC have to fabricate (makeup) temperatures for Bolivia. They do this by using temperatures from the Amazon jungles and beaches of Chili. Guess what, Ms. Reporter, Bolivia now has a serious warming problem they didn't even know existed.

3.) "Don't they have computerized adjustments to take care of all that?"

Eureka! That's the point isn't it? They do a lot adjustments and manipulations to literally manufacture temperatures instead of relying on a first-class global network of thermometers. By the time they get done with all the different types of questionable adjustments, the global warming is created out of thin air. Ms. Reporter, you do realize that what you and others are reporting as the "warmest" decade ever is in fact mostly computer generated warming, not real warming. You do understand that, correct? Right?

4.) "But is there a story here?"

You've got to be kidding. Despite the outright lies about the faux-warming, the entire global warming and climate catastrophe is column inches of fraud, international and national government waste, corruption and who knows what else - it's a Pulitzer waiting to be picked up off the ground!

5.) "But the weatherman on Good Morning, America says we need to stop the warming so the seas don't rise 240 feet! What should we do?"

Aaarrrgggghhh!!!

Peer-Reviewed Journal, Science, Falls For Mann's 'Hide-The-Decline-Trick', Again. Are They Just Stuck On Stupid?

Read here. Honestly, the two well-known peer-reviewed journals that the Climategate-Team had twisted around their pinkies, are either seriously "in the bag" or incredibly inept. If you also consider the New Scientist journal with the Glaciergate revelations, it's amazing anyone can refrain from snickering about the concept of professionalism and seriousness for the peer-review process. Is it really that difficult for the peer-review gatekeepers to at least ask the "scientists" about the actual data that is plotted on a chart? Call it minimum due diligence the public should expect, instead of the gross negligence that is constantly exhibited.

"And, once again, they have used Mann's "Nature Trick" of "ClimateGate" fame, truncating the reconstructed temperature history near its end and replacing it with modern-day instrumental data, so that the last part of the record cannot be validly compared with the earlier portion, since to do so would be akin to comparing apples and oranges, which cannot produce credible quantitative results....This subterfuge is totally unwarranted. And in its current application, it's not just from 1981 or 1961 onwards that the ruse is applied; it's applied all the way from 1850 to 1995, which is the period of overlap between the proxy and instrumental records that was used to calibrate the proxy data. Therefore, since the proxy data were available all the way up to 1995, the reconstructed near-surface air temperature history should also have been plotted all the way up to 1995, in order to be able to make valid quantitative comparisons between the degree of warmth of the Current and Medieval Warm Periods."

What Per Cent of Global Warming Is Natural? Past Climate History Has The Answer

(click on image to enlarge)

First, go look at this page and then come back here. The chart on the previous page shows the temperature history from a Greenland ice core representing thousands of years. That ice core is a window into natural climate change history. The above chart is the visual depiction of the extreme temperature change peaks and troughs from that ice core history. (Note: The "peaks" represent the maximum temperature increase from the preceding climate trough. The "troughs" represent the maximum temperature decline from the preceding climate peak.) What does the this peak/trough graph tell us?

One, Earth experiences significant climate changes on a cyclical basis. It goes from extreme warming, to extreme cooling, then rebounds to an extreme warming peak, followed by an extreme cooling trough, and so on, and so on. (The above chart represents only 9,000 years of this bouncing back-and-forth, which has taken place for eons.)

Two, all these extreme climate changes are natural. Humans had nothing to do with the Earth's climate bouncing back and forth, from one extreme to another.

Three, the extremes arrive, not like clockwork, but on a sporadic basis within a range. For significant peaks, the range between each has been from 500 to 1,300 years (average between peaks is 995 years). For cooling, the range between extremes is from 660 to 1,540 years (average between troughs is 980 years).

Four, prior to modern times, there have been 9 previous extreme warming peaks and 9 cooling troughs, over the last 9,000 years.

Five, the extreme peak increase from a previous trough has been +3.7°C; the extreme trough decrease from a previous peak has been -3.0°C.

What does all this climate history mean for our modern age? Well, it's obvious we are living in a "peak" period, after the extreme cooling trough that we know as the 'Little Ice Age.' Our modern climate cycle is a natural rebound from that devastating cold trough. How high could our cyclical peak go? Based on the natural peaks Earth experienced in the past, possibly another 2.5°C.

This review of climate history brings us to the very last climate "peak cone" on the extreme left side of the above chart, which is our modern climate. Our "peak cone" represents a climate change after a long line of climate changes - a combined total of 18 peaks and troughs over 9,000 years. Our current climate peak is not an exceptional peak versus past peaks, in terms of temperature change (it's only one-third the maximum change). Our modern peak is becoming somewhat old, though. Since the last peak it has been 970 years. In contrast, the average peak difference is 995 years.

Although our modern peak is very mediocre in regards to maximum temperature change, and is becoming old in terms of duration, it absolutely has become the most contentious natural climate change period ever known to humans. Why?

Go back and examine the modern "peak cone" on the left side of the chart. There is a black dash line. Below that dash line, and for all the previous peak and trough cones to the right of that cone, 100% of all scientists consider these climate peaks/troughs to be 100% natural. Above that black dash line though, many government-funded, IPCC global warming scientists consider that small portion of the peak temperature change to be "unnatural." They attribute the climate change above the dash line to be solely due to human CO2 emissions.

Despite the proclamations of IPCC-sponsored scientists, the ice core evidence reveals that the modern extreme peak is well within the range of past peak temperature change, including those temperatures above the dash line. One thing we do know for sure is that portion above the dash line has given us "Climategate," "glaciergate," the infamous "hockey stick," the IPCC, Al Gore, and all the rest, because of the instinctive need to prove that man is more powerful than nature. The only way they have found to do so is to totally disavow the natural forces that brought Earth those 18 previous peaks and troughs, as if nature has nothing to do with our climate 'cone', and through massive scientific malfeasance.

Though it is true human CO2 emissions and other human forces may have a slight influence on temperatures, especially in local/regional areas, the fact remains that modern temperature changes are not unlike the previous global temperature movements already experienced. World temperatures are predominantly driven by the dynamic natural forces that the previous 18 climate temperature changes have exhibited. That's what the ice core climate science tells us.

What per cent of global warming is natural? Based on 9,000 years of climate change history, the answer is very close to 100%.

More Bad News For Warming Alarmists: Two New Studies Indicate That Droughts Less Likely

Read here. The news for global warming alarmists keeps getting worse (but better for the rest of humanity). Peer-research indicates surface evaporation that causes soil dryness is declining, despite warmer temperatures. Also, the level of precipitation has increased. The combination of these two make it very difficult to achieve drought conditions. It's also an indication of new climate model failure as prediction tools.

"Of the many pillars that support the alarmist view of global warming is that droughts will increase in many parts of the world. This prediction is fairly straightforward, for if temperatures increase, potential evapotranspiration (ETo) should increase as well. If precipitation stays the same in the future and ETo increases with higher temperatures, the area would see a reduction in soil moisture and a trend toward drought....We get the message from these two articles – we are getting more rain and we are seeing a decline in potential evapotranspiration....learning that potential evapotranspiration is trending downward and rainfall is increasing sounds to us at World Climate Report like a good thing for forests, grasslands, and agricultural crops throughout the world."

Well, That Didn't Take Long! When Soros Commands, The Obama Administration Jumps - Chu Pleads For 'Cap & Trade'

Read here. Yesterday, we posted about Soros demanding 'cap & trade' from the Obama Administration in order to make his energy investments profitable. Sure enough, when the crooks and thugs demand Obama to jump, he asks how high. Yep, hope and change for his friends and patrons.

"But he [Secretary of Energy Chu] added that creating a cost for emitting greenhouse gases – which would occur under an emissions-capping bill – provides a “long-term signal” that will drive investment decisions by energy project developers."

Global Temperatures: How Fast Will Temps Have To Grow To Reach The Alarmist Hyped Predictions?

As the chart below reveals, temperatures over the last 130 years have been increasing at a 0.57°C per century rate. For the last 10 years, the rate per century has been 0.68°C. Global warming alarmists, such as the MIT climate model scientists, claim temperatures will jump +7.0°C by 2100. In order to reach that temperature level, temperatures will have to increase at a 0.76°C per decade rate (that equals a 7.60°C per century rate). That's over 10 times greater than has been experienced in the last ten years. Putting aside the climate model predictions; looking at the graph instead; and then applying some common sense, there is no way that type of temperature outcome is going to happen. It's all hype to generate press stories, to raise research funding and to cause public fear. (click on image to enlarge)

Uh-Oh....Bush Did It Right On The Climate Thingy It Seems: Obama Turns To Bush's Strategy

Read here. Obama's Copenhagen climate solution turned out to be a cruel joke, causing a literal fiasco. Recognizing that failure, it now appears Obama will be adopting the Bush strategy. How bad is that for his fanatical, global warming alarmist, UN world government supporters? It's way bad, and now it's reeeaaaaly a cruel turn of events for Bush-haters.

"So now what? It turns out that President George W. Bush has already paved the way for President Obama. In September 2007, Bush convened the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington, D.C. The meeting included representatives from the world’s 16 biggest economies....President Bush urged the representatives to set a long term goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and argued that the best way to address climate change was through developing low-carbon energy technologies....the Obama administration convened the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. Obama’s forum membership is identical to Bush’s meeting membership...the Obama administration will sideline the cumbersome United Nations climate negotiations process....it is “impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail." So instead, the Obama administration and leaders of the other major economies will negotiate among themselves how each of them will address man-made global warming."

Let's hope China sabotages this attempt at energy and economic control also.

Heeees Back! Soros Demanding Obama Give Him 'Cap & Trade' So His Clean-Energy Investments Won't Fail

Read here. Well, only a few days before Massachusetts voters made it clear to everyone that more big government is not the solution, George Soros, the leftist billionaire, was asking for U.S. government guarantees for his energy investments. In this case, a new, big government law enforcing 'cap & trade' policies would be all the guarantee he needs to make his energy investments a winner. This policy would force a lot of American consumer and business dollars to flow into the Soros' owned 'cap & trade' energy solutions. And, by golly, he would even donate $100 million to an environmental policy group to help enforce the regulations - how thoughtful.

Apparently, the Obama administration has bought into the chutzpah of the leftist-speculator-criminal and is considering pushing 'cap & trade', again. Gee, I wonder why Obama would do that? Good luck with that, guys. We'll be waiting at the ballot box if you try.

50+ Researchers Confirm Amazon's Amazing Biomass Growth No Fluke - Growth Due To Enhanced CO2

Read here. As has been well documented by many peer-reviewed studies, increases in atmospheric CO2 has done wonders for the biosphere and vegetation growth. The Amazon is just the most spectacular example.

"Gloor et al. conclude that their results lend "further support to the notion that currently observed biomass gains for intact forests across the Amazon are actually occurring over large scales at the current time, presumably as a response to climate change," which in many of their earlier papers is explicitly stated to include the aerial fertilization effect of the historical increase in the air's CO2 content."

The 'Tea Party', Greens, & The Massachussetts' Revolution: Will Combination of Forces Kill Wind Power Schemes Promoted By Gov't?

Read here. Much like the corn ethanol initiative, wind power is promoted and subsidized by the U.S. government. This turnabout from a 90's "has-been" is primarily due to the shenanigans of the former corporate powerhouse Enron, and now GE, which acquired the Enron wind business.

Despite a lot of powerful friends, wind power is becoming reviled within the green movement and local environmentalist community. It's easy to understand why since wind power farms are not exactly appealing to local residents and it's really not a very reliable source of energy. Add to the boiling pot a government(s) jamming wind farms into areas over the protests of community residents, it becomes a recipe that may cause 'Tea Party' supporters and green activists to work in concert - viva la revolution!

Per this article or this one, it doesn't sound as if the wind power proponents and government agencies quite understand the populace undercurrents. Clueless?

Central England Temperatures: "Runaway" Warming During The Last Decade?

Part 1 here, part 2 here. In our previous two posts, we looked at the oldest thermometer temperature record, CET (central England temperatures), to determine if the last decade exhibited "unprecedented" absolute temperature changes versus the past (it did not). This post is going to look at whether the last decade was exhibiting "runaway" ("accelerated," "accelerating," "galloping," etc.) warming versus the historical past, as an add-on to Luboš Motl's previous findings.

In his analysis, he found that the growth (trend/slope) of temperatures for the last 10 years (2000-2009) was not exceptional versus the past. Using Excel, we've calculated additional growth rates (trends/slopes) that provide more time-period data points to analyze for those who are interested, plus a new, 'purty' graph. (click on the images to enlarge)

Examining the above grids on the left, there are only 4 years (see red rectangles) from last 10 years that exhibit 'top-ten' warming growth (degrees per century growth rate from the trend/slope). As can be seen, for the 30-year time periods, years 2007, 2006 and 2008 achieved top-ten slots but the rest of grid was taken up by 18th century years. Other than the year 2004 in the 10-year time period, the grids are void of recent years that we were told represented galloping warming.

Moving on, the graph on the right is displaying all 60-year periods and their respective growth trends (degrees per century growth rate). The right-side of the curve reveals the most recent years having 60-year spans of faster warming. But is this warming acceleration exceptional or extraordinary versus the past? Again, the early to mid-18th century (left-side of curve) truly is the era of unmatched "accelerated" warming, and unprecedented, absolute temperature change, as 'C3' posts (parts one & two) have documented.

Why did we choose the 60-year time periods to graph? It's now been 60+ years since CO2 emissions have exploded (1946 was the first large jump in human CO2 emissions). Global warming alarmists claim that years of human CO2 emissions have caused a "runaway" growth in temperatures. Even after 60+ years of CO2 growth, that claim rings hollow when compared to the pre-industrial growth rate of temperatures.

As an aside, you may have noticed that the trends got smaller as the time periods grew in number of years. In the case of ten-year trends, the top figure is 52.3 degrees per century. For sixty-year periods, the respective figure is 2.6 degrees per century. For the entire series, 351 years, the trend falls to 0.26 degrees per century. Those are huge differences in the slope of the trend line. That is why global warming alarmists are fixated on short-term trends that they love to extrapolate out into the future. But 350 some years from now, the actual trend line from 2010 on will look more similar to the 0.26 per century than say, the 52.3 degree/century trend - it's just the 'nature' of things when viewed in longer timescales.

Summary for the three CET posts: Temperatures in central England are at their warmest since 1659 (just forget about the the winter of 2010 for now). In contrast to previous temperature history, during the latter part of the 20th century or the beginning of the 21st century, have central England temperature changes been "unprecedented"? The answer is a definite no. In contrast to previous temperature history, during the latter part of the 20th century or the beginning of the 21st century, has the central England temperature trend (growth rate) been "galloping"? The answer is a definite no.

Are the CET dataset, trends and temperature changes a perfect proxy for global temperatures. The answer is no. Do they provide a good insight to the historical past of global temperatures and their long-term dynamic behavior? The answer is a strong yes. If long-term global temperatures were available from 1659 on, the general trends and absolute change characteristics we found for the CET would be similar to what a global temperature dataset would likely produce. Does this mean one could accurately calculate what global temperatures were some 350 years ago based on these CET findings? Wish it were so but the answer is a resounding, "no way."

New Study: IPCC CO2-Based Climate Models Have Performed Miserably, Brookhaven Researchers Find

Read here. If human CO2 was causing present global warming, as dictated by the IPCC climate models, current global temperatures would be 1.3°C higher than actually observed. Where does that leave the various climate models that are predicting anywhere from 2.4°C to 7.0°C+ by year 2100?

The Brookhaven scientists don't have a scientific clue as to the future, but they are more than willing to speculate about why temperatures have not matched model predictions:

“Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles,” said Schwartz, “it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth’s climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs.”

No mention of other climate forcings that climate models basically ignore or minimize, which may better explain global cooling/warming directions than the faddish CO2 myopia affecting the majority of climate scientists.

Multiple Peer-Research Confirms Huge Urban Heat Island Effect - It's The Real Warming Problem Being Ignored By Politicians

Read here and here. Besides the normal night time warming from radiating buildings and parking lots, there are urban heat island (UHI) impacts that affect coastal waters, watershed evaporation, and soil. As these multiple studies indicate, UHI is huge, diverse, and has a larger impact than CO2 (read the Barrows, Alaska study in the first linked article).

"So what have we learned about the urban heat island effect from data obtained in North America? We've learned that it is large and growing in large-and-growing cities, as well as in small towns. Given these undeniable facts, it is presumptuous in the extreme to believe that the global surface air temperature record of the last few decades has been adequately adjusted for small-town and large-city heat island effects; and we can thus be fairly confident that the true warming of the planet has likely been far less than what has been claimed by essentially all assessments of the phenomenon conducted to date."

The California example: (click on image to enlarge)

"the three researchers found that "most [California] regions showed a stronger increase in minimum temperatures than with mean and maximum temperatures," and that "areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming." In fact, they report that the Northeast Interior Basins of the state actually experienced cooling. Large urban sites, on the other hand, exhibited rates of warming "over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperature, and over five times the state's mean rate for the minimum temperature.""

The Lunacy of Ethanol: Proof That U.S. Politicians Could Care Less About CO2 Emissions

Read here, here and here. There are a multitude of good reasons why subsidizing ethanol production and mandating its use is plain craziness. The most important reason though, is the fact that a gallon of ethanol spews more CO2 than a gallon of gas (we should replace all ethanol with oil-based gas that comes from U.S. resources - "drill baby, drill" policies). If the politicians and the EPA really felt CO2 was a harmful pollutant, and would endanger not only humans but the climate also, they would be morally be obligated to immediately kill the subsidies and mandates. Obviously, it's all about money and control, not reducing CO2 emissions.

"Replacing the US gasoline consumption of 138 billion gallons annually with ethanol biofuel — just as the government energy policy wants to do — would add about 138 billion pounds of carbon dioxide annually from renewable ethanol biofuel. This is an additional 69 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air annually. The government energy policy would increase rather than decrease carbon dioxide into the air, just the opposite of what the government climate policy wants to do."

Central England Temperatures: "Unprecedented" Warming During The Last Decade?

In a previous post (part 3 of series is here), we examined the long-recorded (since 1659) central England temperature (CET) dataset and determined that the decade ending 2009 indeed had some of the warmest recorded temperatures for central England. But does that mean the decade also represents "unprecedented" warming? The preliminary analysis in the first post found very little to qualify as "unprecedented" temperature changes. What would a more detailed look find?

First, why do we even worry about "unprecedented" warming? As is well documented, global warming scientists associated with the IPCC and the publicly funded major climate research centers, along with the fanatical global warming activists, are claiming that human CO2 emissions since WWII are causing "unprecedented," exceptional, "tipping point" warming changes. The warming changes are so great, they say that..."The spectre of a 4C [degrees] warmer world, with alligators basking off the coast of Sweden..." Is there even a sliver of truth to these type of unprecedented claims? (click on images to enlarge)

As the chart on the left depicts, we examine multiple periods and identify the ten (10) largest temperatures changes for each period. Out of a total of eighty (80) opportunities to rank in the top 10, the last decade only placed in the top twice (see red rectangles). Especially interesting is the 60-year period. Starting with 1946, the growth of human CO2 emissions was relentless. Yet even after that huge input of CO2, the 'ought' years do not even make the top 10 list of temperature changes within 60-year time periods, or even the 50-year period. This is "unprecedented"? Welcome to the world of bogus climate science and bloated hype.

In even more detail, the graph on the right looks at all the 60-year periods (starting with 1718, and ending with 2009, there are 292 periods shown) and right away one year stands out: 1938. Before any major human CO2 emissions, the 60-years ending in 1938 clocked a 2.76 degree temperature change. Towards the left side of the graph (the 18th century) there exist the majority of the largest temperature changes; whereas towards the right-side (the modern years) not too many large temperature changes. One should also note the incredible variability of temperatures throughout this extended range of 60-year periods, whether it be pre-1945 or post 1945 when the large human CO2 emissions began. Based on this graph, it would be fair to state that there was much greater variability prior to the era of "global warming" caused by CO2, which is directly opposite of what the consensus-favored, alarmist-loved AGW hypothesis proposes.

What does this say about the climate scientists, the politicians, and the activists stating that "unprecedented" warming change is happening due to human CO2? Well, nothing too good comes to mind other than thinking no sane person should ever believe a word they say, including, most recently, anything they say about melting glaciers. Amazing how one lie begets another.

New Peer-Research: Can Climate Models Finally Do 'Albedo', Correctly? Nope, Not Even Close

Read here. Back in 2006, experts determined that climate models were unable to accurately determine or predict the Earth's global albedo (measurement of Earth's potential to reflect solar energy harmlessly back into space). Doing albedo correctly is a basic necessity for global climate models (GCMs) to work as advertised. If they can't do albedo, they can't predict.

"It is hereby found that models appear to over-estimate the albedo during boreal summer and under-estimate it during austral summer. Furthermore, the seasonal variations of albedo in subtropical areas dominated by low stratiform clouds, as well as in dry desert regions in the subtropics, seem to be poorly simulated by the model."

"In this study, we have seen that there are substantial differences between models and measurements when it comes to regional and global albedo. By pointing out specific problems and apparent shortcomings, we hope to facilitate the improvement of GCMs in this respect. We have also seen that large uncertainties and poor/insufficient coverage in observations make it hard to draw conclusions with confidence...", and we therefore take this opportunity to urge experimentalists to refine their products and quantify the uncertainties therein"

Have the GCMs finally corrected the "albedo" problem that would finally lead to accurate climate predictions? Based on 2009 peer-reviewed research, the answer is 'NO.' Summary: climate models still can't do "albedo."

From Wu, C., T. Zhou, and D.-Z. Sun, 2009:

"While the results confirm the previous finding that most models underestimate the cloud albedo feedback....Examination of the cause of the weaker feedback from cloud albedo in the models suggests that the bias is likely linked to a weaker relationship between the short-wave cloud forcing and the precipitation in the models."

Hard-Nosed Scientists Are Getting Fed Up Wth NASA/GISS & NOAA/NCDC Malfeasance and BullSh**t

Read here, here and here. Climate science has fallen down a rabbit hole of fantasy, incredible incompetence, professional fraud, distortions and out-and-out data fiction. It appears we are yet to find the bottom of the rabbit hole and every day brings new revelations. There are growing number of scientists who are fed up with what has happened to climate science, and they are speaking out more and more against the government sponsored bogus science and the subprofessionals leading the funded climate agencies.

"The issues of the conflict of interest illustrated by the sample of e-mails from Phil Jones, as well as the above e-mails from Tom Karl, illustrate the extent that this corruption of climate assessments has permeated climate science."

Little Ice Age Destruction & Catastrophes: Peer-Research Documents The Terrible Cold Climate That Could Return

Read here. Global warming fanatics and gullible politicians have left us in a position that we are totally unprepared for the eventual recurrence of ice age type conditions, be it "major," "little" or "mini." The chorus of global cooling alarms is starting to get louder but do we have enough time to prepare for the worst?

"The Little Ice Age in Scandinavia, as in most parts of the world where glaciers were wont to form and grow during that period, was not a time of either pleasantness or plenty.In fact, it was downright depressing and dangerous.....Consequently, and in light of all of the debilitating phenomena associated with depressed global temperatures, if there was even the slimmest of chances that the historical increase in the air's CO2 content may have contributed somewhat to the 20th-century warming that brought the planet out of this awful environmental state, it should be applauded."

New Peer-Reviewed Research Further Undercuts Obama's Bogus Hurricane Claims (He Needs New Climate Advisors)

Read here and here. Newest research from eminent hurricane expert totally eviscerates global warming fanatics' claims that hurricanes/cyclones are on rise due to warming. Unfortunately, Obama still favors scientists pushing the bogus science of global warming catastrophes instead of those who are in command of the scientific facts.