Scientists investigated whether the expert climate change prediction that growing CO2 emissions, and the subsequent atmospheric increase of CO2, would cause an increase in the frequency and severity of large flooding.
The island nation of Fiji was chosen to validate the expert prediction due to a Fiji locality having 12 centuries decades of flood climate records.
And the result of this peer-reviewed investigative research of the supposed relationship between CO2 and flooding?
Even with a long-term record stretching across 12 centuries decades, the scientists were unable to find any validation of expert and climate model predictions that CO2 greenhouse gas warming produces an outcome of increased severe flooding.
The empirical CO2-warming and flooding relationship appears to be zero.
"...real scientists engaged in real research have used sound statistical methods to investigate this topic; and what they typically find does not bode well for climate alarmists.....performed a series of statistical analyses on these data, seeking to determine "whether the data set can reveal the degree to which islands in the Pacific are already seeing the impact of global climate change on the risk of severe flooding." Results of the analysis revealed that despite a persistent warming trend of ~0.18°C per decade over the past seven decades, there has been no consistent trend in flooding. Consequently, McAneney et al. matter-of-factly attest that they were "unable to detect any influence of global warming at this tropical location on either the frequency or the height of major flooding." What is more, they add that their study demonstrates "the difficulty of achieving statistical significance in terms of attribution of extreme weather even with relatively long data sets.""
Just another example of failed predictions based on the CO2-centric anthropogenic catastrophic global warming hypothesis.
Source: Fiji flood image
The consensus regarding the catastrophic global warming hypothesis is completely reliant on a proposed positive feedback producing runaway global warming that will destroy human civilization. Simply, is it happening?
The positive feedback would reveal its existence if global temperatures were accelerating to a tipping point of runaway warming, due to the ever-increasing human CO2 emission releases into the atmosphere,
As done with a previous article involving the analysis of the satellite record of temperature acceleration warming trends, the same can be accomplished with the HC4 global dataset. Thus, this analysis will also focus on both short and long-term warming trends to determine whether a constant state of acceleration is present.
First, the chart on the right represents satellite short and long-term acceleration plots used in the prior article; the chart of the left plots the short and long-term warming per century acceleration rates derived from the HC4 land/sea global dataset.
To attain the best apple-to-apple comparison, both charts are based on a start date that coincides with the advent of the satellite measuring technology in 1979 and through month-end February 2018.
Visually, the chart similarities of the two different temperature measuring methodologies are striking.
When scrutinized closely, there are differences, but those would be expected when one methodology is measuring lower atmosphere temps and the other methodology is based on near-surface temps of land and water.
As found in the prior analysis of the lower atmosphere temperature record, global surface temperatures accelerate at a faster pace and then always decelerate to a slower pace that may even indicate the potential of a cooling climate regimen.
More importantly, the HC4 temperature dataset verifies what the prior article on the satellite dataset established: despite multiple major warming El Nino events, and with over 60% of all 1850-2016 total CO2 emissions being released since 1979, there is absolutely zero indication of a positive feedback's existence producing a runaway, "tipping point" warming acceleration.
On the contrary, as of February 2018, all 3 short-term temperature HC4 acceleration trends at the end of February 2018 are well below their respective beginning trend values; and the ending February 2018 long-term per century trend is practically the same as the beginning trend value.
This finding matches with what was identified in the previous satellite analysis.
Additionally, as noted at the bottom of each chart, the positive correlations between the rolling monthly temperature trends and the cumulative growth of CO2 levels (ppm) are empirically not much different from zero; plus, both the long-term satellite and surface global trends seemingly have an inverse relationship with accumulating CO2 gases (a possible explanation?).
If correlation is an indicator of potential causation, then one would need to look at an entirely different reason other than CO2 emissions for any attempt to justify a belief in the runaway global warming scenario.
Since a dangerous accelerating climate warming simply does not exist after decades of vast amounts of human greenhouse emissions being released, it is fair to conclude that the consensus of a catastrophic runaway global warming is debunked and entirely without any empirical merit or validity.
It still remains mere speculation after all these years, and should possibly be considered another candidate for the ash heap of group-think "consensus science."
Note: Excel used to calculate trends and to plot. HC4 dataset. The satellite dataset is 50/50 weighting of the RSS and UAH datasets. Monthly CO2 dataset. Calculated trends do not predict the future trends.
In a word: No.
As can be seen, maximum temperatures peak and then they don't.
The 5-yr average (60mth avg.) red curve tells the story: despite huge global emissions of the greenhouse gas, the U.S. breadbasket has a narrowly stable maximum temperature pattern.
And, amazingly, the maximum temperatures of this large region during the 21st century still DO NOT exceed those experienced in the early 20th century.
Conclusion: As discussed in the prior article, [Ed: meant to link to this prior article] unusual and unprecedented dangerous "global" climate warming is not close to being an empirical reality. As the U.S. corn belt reveals, every regional climate is different - they experience major warming and cooling periods for different reasons, at different times, and at different rates, regardless of the global atmospheric CO2 levels.
Essentially, across many parts of the world, the lack of warming and the lack of unusual warming - i.e. unprecedented, exceptional warming - confirms that the fear of human CO2-driven catastrophic warming is likely very misplaced.
Similar to the recent scientific findings of unexceptional modern warming for many parts of the world, such as in the U.S., across Antarctica, and multiple other regions of the world, scientists in China have analyzed a 350+ year climate record and found modern warming is not unusual versus the warming of earlier periods in the record.
"In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST."
The scientists also determined that human CO2 was not a factor driving the warming and cooling analyzed.
"Accompanied by significant peaks at 60.2 and 73 years, the continuously periodicities around 49–114 years in our regional temperature reconstruction might tentatively be related to PDO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation...as well as solar activity...The AMO was an important driver of multidecadal variations in summer climate not only in North America and western Europebut also in the East Asia...The 60.2-year peak associated with AMO demonstrated that multidecadal variations in late summer temperature in the NWSP NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be controlled by AMO."
This 2016 study from China adds to the enormous amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that an all encompassing modern "global" warming from human CO2 does not exist.
The scientific evidence is unequivocal: There exist huge regional climate swaths of the globe that have mildly warmed in an unexceptional manner during the modern industrial/consumer era; and there exist multiple large areas that even lack any regional climate-significant modern warming whatsoever.
Such occurrences are the expected climate change manifestations from increasing CO2 emissions predicted by consensus experts and climate models.
But do these manifestations occur currently in a non-urban area with greater frequency than in years prior to modern global warming fears?
If CO2-driven global warming and climate change are as truly powerful and to be feared as many suggest, then the evidence of a greater frequency in the number of extreme hot days should be obvious.
As this article explains, there is a non-urban Japanese island (Hachijō Island) lying about 180 miles south of Tokyo in the Philippine Sea provides a long-term climate record of hot-day occurrences. (The island is administered by Tokyo.)
As in many countries, Japan uses the 30°C (86°F) minimum to designate an extreme 'hot day'.
The adjacent chart for the island identifies the number of 'hot and furious' periods going back to 1926 based on the 30°C criteria. For the 21st century specifically, including year 2000, there has been an average of 22.7 extreme hot days per year through 2017.
That's pretty high, especially when compared to the 1970's. But is that 22.7 number for the last 18 years unprecedented? Turns out the answer is 'no'.
The following 18-year periods, including 1929-1946, 1930-1947, 1931-1948, 1932-1949, 1933-1950, 1934-1951, 1935-1952, 1936-1953, 1937-1954, 1938-1955, 1939-1956, 1940-1957, 1941-1958, 1942-1959, 1943-1960, 1944-1961, and 1945-1962, had a higher average of hot days versus the 18-year period ending in 2017.
The 18-year span ending in 1958 had the absolute highest average count of extreme hot days - 25.8 days - per year.
What one can hypothesize from the above data and chart is that the huge growth of CO2 emissions has not produced the greater frequency of extreme hot days expected by experts. And also surmise that natural climate processes, for both the past and the present, are the responsible driver for periods with extreme hot weather events.
It should be noted that the modern count of extreme hot-day years has also been shown to be less in the modern U.S. era of high CO2 emissions when compared to the past.
This actual empirical evidence does refute the expert prediction that the frequency of extremely hot days across the globe would be a direct result of higher atmospheric CO2 levels. And although there certainly may well be regional areas of the world that have experienced a greater frequency - especially concrete/steel highly urbanized areas - there are indeed other areas of the world that have not.
Additional failed prediction articles.
Note: This Japanese blogger compiled the data and produced the chart.
Experts in sea level research did a focused analysis on the predicted sea level projections for California by activist groups. These groups are suggesting that sea level rise could be as much as 3 meters by year 2100 due to human CO2 emission release into the atmosphere.
This peer-reviewed study - from experts not associated with an activist agenda group(s) - determined that the alarmist predictions of dramatic increases of California sea levels 'hold no water'.
This chart is from their study analysis, along with the below stinging rebuttal to the activist groups.
"In summing up these and other of their several findings, Parker and Ollier write that "the evidences from real sea level measurements do not support the IPCC models or the even more alarming predictions [made by the National Research Council and California Ocean Science Trust]. The latter, "they continue, "are founded on pure speculation, constructed on unproven assumptions, and do not provide a suitable basis for use in planning or policy making.""
Prior sea level articles.
Connect-The-Dots: The NOAA temperature dataset for the U.S. reveals that for the last 22 years and 3 months, the U.S. continental temperature change has been cooling at a minus -0.02°F per decade.
The chart above was produced by NOAA at their 'Climate at a Glance' web page. In the upper right corner of the chart, NOAA shows its calculated per decade trend of -0.02°F for a period that spans 1996-2018.
After posting this chart and an accompanying article, it just seemed that something was likely wrong with the trend calculation produced by NOAA's web site.
After an Excel analysis of the absolute and anomaly temperature dataset, which can be downloaded from the same web page that produced the above chart, that NOAA trend calculation cannot be confirmed with any confidence. In fact, that NOAA decade trend calculation seems egregiously wrong and very misleading.
Thus, we replaced all of the article's text with the above explanation since the NOAA information looks to be incorrect. That is not to say definitively that they are wrong but that we are completely unable to replicate their calculated trend.
Lesson Learned: Don't trust government work - always double-check.
Note: Chart was produced at this NOAA climate page. Time period selected for the chart was from January 1996 through March 2018.
Climate simulation models have proven to be unreliable when their predictions, scenarios, projections, etc. are compared to the observed climate realities. A recent example is in regards to the waters surrounding Antarctica.
The Southern Ocean is comprised of 5 sub-regions. This study reviewed the empirical evidence of sea ice extent and found that 4 of the 5 sub-regions experienced an expanded sea ice extent and the Southern Ocean overall did likewise. The study confirms the growing scientific consensus that sea ice has increased since 1979.
In contrast to the climate models and their prognostications, these scientific observations of climate reality are opposite of what the models expected.
"Whatever the true cause or causes, one thing is certain, all of the climate models have failed to predict the observed increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent. Rather, as reported in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2-induced global warming is supposed to reduce its extent by an average of between 16 and 67 percent in the summer and 8 to 30 percent in the winter by the end of the century (IPCC, 2013). Clearly, therefore, something must be fundamentally wrong with the climate models, for their predictions to be so far off from the observed sea ice trends."
Since climate models are dependent on the CO2 greenhouse gas being a major driving force in the simulations, it is not a surprise to those familiar with the subject that the simulated outputs continue to be deeply flawed.
Empirical evidence review: It has now been 30 years since the former chief NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, unleashed his climate apocalypse scenarios on the public in 1988 ... looking back, does the empirical evidence support the fears of "unprecedented" warming?
It has long been common knowledge among both scientists and laypeople that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended during the mid-1800s. In fact, from January 1850 through January 1988, the world had already warmed over 1 degree Celsius.
And it was in 1988 that James Hansen decided to present the case that this slow warming since the LIA was soon to become "unprecedented" due to CO2 emissions, thus causing untold climate chaos - i.e. boiling oceans, droughts, famines, Manhattan Island flooding along with other coastal regions, Earth turning into the next Venus, and etc.
Factually, the world has continued to warm since 1988, but is it "unprecedented" versus the climate warming of pre-1988?
It's not enough simply to claim the world is warmer, more important is to determine if temperatures changes are larger than ever.
To determine if today's global warming deserves to be considered unprecedented, an analysis of 30-year (360-month) climate temperature changes would be an effective means.
Using the gold-standard surface temperature record dataset, the HadCRUT4.6 global anomalies stretch back all the way to 1850.
We know from that dataset that the modern 30-year climate temperature change was +0.29ºC of warming at the end of February 2018. To clarify, that is the temperature warming change from February 1988 through February 2018.
That +0.29°C temperature since 1988 change took place in a global climate context that included not only the impact of multiple powerful El Niños, but also an atmosphere that was infused from 1989-2016 with over 50% of the total human CO2 emissions (metric tonnes) emitted since 1850.
Yet, despite all those CO2 emissions over the last 30 years, as the adjacent table reveals, there are 28 previous 30-year changes all ending in the month of February that exceed the "unprecedented" the most +0.29°C change.
All 28 of those 30-year temperature changes took place before the additional 50% of all CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.
By expanding the analysis to include all 12 months - not just the month February alone - there have been 247 monthly instances prior to 1988 when long-term the 30-year global temperature warming change exceeded that for February 2018.
In contrast to the above, the 30-year change in CO2 ppm as of February 2018 significantly exceeds all 30-year CO2 changes prior to 1988 without fail.
As an aside, in regards to the short-term, the 12-month global temperature change was a minus -0.32°C for the month-end of February 2018.
True: The world has warmed since 1988 as the global temperature dataset establishes.
But, per the same empirical evidence, the current modern warming, as represented by 30-year temperature increases, is not in the least extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.
Prior to the additional 50% of total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions being added to the world's biosphere, global warming change easily matched or exceeded that experienced since 1988 - the year of NASA's James Hansen's predictions of climate apocalypse from human CO2.
Based on all the the gold-standard temperature measurements that the HadCRUT dataset provides, it is evident that periods of exceptional global warming changes (and the recent cooling temp changes) are more likely driven by natural forces than the ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
Note: Excel used to calculate 30-year temperature changes from the HadCRUT global land/sea dataset of temperature anomalies and past CO2 data (links found here). Left column of table are months of February and associated year; right column of table are the 30-year changes in temperature anomalies. Only chose to show the sub-list of February examples instead of all months, which was comprised of 247 in total.
The 1997-1998 El Niño versus the 2015-2016 event. How do they differ? How are they similar? The takeaway?
Now that the global HadCRUT4.6 dataset is available for February 2018, it is possible to examine a 4-year period for both El Niños, including the 'pre' and 'post' months for each.
These two major El Niño events do have some similarities as shown in their respective 4-year charts.
Besides the shared visual pattern of low-to-high-to-low similarity, the peak temperature for both periods came in the month of February (1998 & 2016).
For both, the beginning month (February 1996 and February 2014) were essentially identical: +0.32°C and +0.33°C.
And the end points displayed in the above charts are not dramatically different - there is only a +0.07°C gap between the higher February 2018 anomaly versus that of February 2000.
The small end point difference of only +0.07°C is rather surprising within the context of how much more peak warming took place in February 2016 (+1.11°C) versus February 1998 (+0.76°C).
Then there is a similarity of linear rate of warming for the 24 months leading up to the peak months of February 1998 and February 2016: +22.3°C per century versus +22.6°C, respectively.
Regarding the differences between the two phenomenons:
There is a large difference for the peak month anomaly of the respective Februaries (1998 & 2016). Indeed, a visually striking difference is apparent.
In addition, on average, the monthly anomalies of the 2014-2018 period are +0.35°C then for the 1996-2000 period. Visually, the entire curve for the later El Niño event has been shifted up.
With that said, when the anomalies for the 10-year period prior to February 1996 and February 2014 are compared, one finds that the later anomalies were, on average, +0.3°C higher than those of the earlier 10-year period.
Another difference is the overall warming trends exhibited during the two 4-year analysis periods. From February 1996 through February 2000, the warming rate is +3.6°C per century. The warming rate for the February 2014 through February 2018 is significantly lower at +0.72°C per century.
This substantially larger per century warming rate for the earlier event analysis period - ending in February 2000 - is rather unexpected given the typical mainstream headlines leading up to this last major El Niño.
Then there is the difference in how much the temperature anomaly has dropped since the peak month for each of these El Niños. For the 24-month period after the Feb. 1998 peak, the temperature anomaly dropped a -0.3°C. In contrast, the drop from the Feb. 2016 peak has been double the earlier period's - a drop of -0.6°C.
Finally, the deceleration of warming rates after the peak highs do differ but not excessively. For the 24-month span ending February 2000, the deceleration of warming from the February 1998 peak was a -18.81°C per century (i.e. cooling per century) versus a deceleration, from the 2016 peak, of -16.44°C per century ending February 2018.
Additional global warming charts.
Note: Excel use to plot and calculate trends for the 2 charts using the published February 2018 global HadCRUT 4.6 dataset (as of March 30, 2018).
Does the empirical evidence support the belief that human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere will directly cause an increase in forest fires from global warming?
As the above plots show, whether it's the U.S. national forests or the state owned properties in fire-prone California, the number of fires incidents has significantly declined starting with the 1980s. This has taken place during 50 years of the largest growth of atmospheric CO2 levels - the largest possibly for millions of years.
The chart plots are from the recent extensive peer-reviewed study published by forestry researchers.
"Both USFS and Cal Fire protected lands had the lowest number of fires in the early record but ignitions began to increase in the1960s and peaked between 1970 and 1990, subsequently declining on both USFS and Cal Fire lands. ... Major fires are dependent on the juxtaposition of such weather events with anthropogenic ignitions. Future fire regimes will be less affected by global warming than by other global changes, in particular population growth, because over 95% of ignitions are due to humans. As populations increase we expect a greater chance of ignitions during severe fire weather conditions."
In addition, the subject of forest fire devastation was recently re-analyzed using entirely different data. And further back, 'C3' and others have published multiple examinations of the available empirical evidence - here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
Prediction FactCheck Verdict: Fail
The expert and climate model predictions of CO2 and global warming wreaking fire havoc upon forested areas is absolutely without convincing empirical evidence. All facts point to an overall improvement in the count and extent of forest fire destruction since the peak destruction experienced during the early decades of the 20th century.
Note: Decade-end atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed on graphs from the 2017 Keely & Syphard study.
The adjacent chart superimposes annual atmospheric CO2 levels onto a chart that Bjorn Lomborg produced on his Facebook page. H/T
Since 1920, while climate-related deaths have plummeted, the deaths from non-climate related natural events has essentially hovered in a narrow range.
Yet, from 1920-2017, the atmospheric CO2 levels has grown an exceptional amount at an exceptional speed. A growth that has primarily attributed to the modern industrial/consumer combustion of fossil fuels.
That is the undeniable empirical evidence that lays total waste to the anti-science beliefs and doomsday claims of celebrity-seeking individuals who populate Washington D.C., Hollywood, ivory towers, and etc.
It's just another example of 'elites' failing to connect the real science dots.
Simple Summary: The trace greenhouse gas CO2 should not be feared as some sort of death-machine unleashed by humans. Instead the empirical evidence suggests it is an indication of civilization advancement and the life-saving achievements it produces.
Long live the CO2-savior!
Additional charts of interest.
The case of the dissolving starfish: Often, the actual science regarding research studies is misreported by the institutions - i.e. academia - that publish press releases on studies they have sponsored, which then the journalists spread and propagandize for their readers and viewers
A recent example of misreporting are the "scientific" news stories based on a study's press release that increased ocean acidification, presumably from human CO2 emissions, was dissolving the poor coastal starfish population.
Turns out, per an analysis of what this latest starfish scientific study actually stated, the research said nothing of the sort.
The news stories about the dissolving starfish represent reporting practice that is frequent and purposefully designed to mislead the public and policymakers.
In contrast, when ocean acidification research is well-conducted and well-reported, the opposite conclusion about the impact of lower pH levels is usually the result.
An example is a recent ocean acidfication study of the impact on a starfish relative, the lowly sea urchin.
"In light of these several findings, the Australian, New Zealand and U.S. researchers felt safe in stating that the sea urchins "did not only persist but actually 'thrived' under extreme conditions." And why was this so? Uthicke et al. opine that it was because (6) "increased algal productivity under increased pCO2 [Ed: increasing water acidification] provided more food at the vent, resulting in higher growth rates." And in light of this likelihood, they conclude their paper by stating that the processes they studied "are best identified in natural settings ... where ecosystems and individuals are exposed throughout their life to conditions similar to those in future oceans.""
Unfortunately, the journalistic practice of relying on questionable press releases is widespread, thus leading "journalists" to embellish and promulgate fake science and, of course, leading to ludicrous fear-mongering. The case of the "dissolving starfish" is a classic example.
Per our prior article, an examination of the empirical evidence for atmospheric warming was done to determine if Earth had crossed the 'tipping point' red line. This article drills down further to look at specific data points.
The adjacent chart - using the same information as before - narrows the focus down to a few specific markers of both short-term and long-term global warming acceleration.
Besides showing the cumulative CO2 growth, this chart depicts the plots (pinkish circles sans the connecting curve lines) of the 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month rolling per century warming acceleration trends
[For those counting: the count of their respective calculated trend points are as follows: 459 calculated points; 447 calculated points; 435 calculated points.]
On the chart, the 12-month first and last calculated trend points are marked as red dots; for the 24-month first and last, the representation marks are the blue dots; and for the 36-month first and last, those are designated by the two bright green circles.
Clearly, despite the substantial increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from 1979 to 2018, all the ending acceleration trend points of February 2018 are actually lower than the very first trend points for each short-term period.
The chart's aqua colored trend line is constructed using the 240-month rolling calculated trends (the count of calculated trend points making up the aqua line is 231). The aqua colored triangles mark the first, last, and highest calculated warming trend points.
For the long-term, the empirical evidence confirms that the February 2018 acceleration trend of 1.17°C per century is lower than both the beginning trend value of 1.74°C and the highest trend value reached way back in April 2004 of 2.52°C per century.
One could surmise that this result is climate evidence of a long-term atmospheric negative feedback mechanism in play.
Conclusion: For a tipping point and/or runaway warming to be reached, and then survive, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis demands that the lower troposphere warms in a consistent and accelerating mode, due to the hypothetical positive atmospheric feedbacks supposedly produced from fossil fuel CO2 emissions. As this analysis substantiates what the prior article had found, the current climate "tipping point" claims and/or concerns are completely without empirical evidence merit or, if you prefer, categorically factless.
Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.
Every time there is a "hottest" day, a "warmest-than-ever" month, or an extended period of quickly rising global temps, there are many who instantly claim that the world has reached a runaway climate change condition, or a global warming tipping point, or a soon to be doomsday, a no-return cascade turning Earth into the next Venus.
Hyperbole or fact?
The adjacent graph is one that we have produced in the past. Every few months it is updated in the quest of finally identifying the no-return doomsday tipping point that so many celebrities, journalists, and politicians fear and speak of.
The graph contains simple plots exhibiting the constant linear growth of cumulative CO2 levels in the atmosphere and multiple temperature trends.
The per century trends plotted are derived from the gold-standard NASA satellite atmospheric - i.e., lower troposphere (LT) - temperature measurements. The measurements are produced by two organizations - RSS and UAH - and the graph's trend plots represent a 50/50 average of those RSS/UAH published datasets since 1979.
As the plots make abundantly clear, since the inception of satellite measurements, LT short-term temperature trends go up and then they go down. The LT temperatures regularly have an acceleration spike and then a subsequent deceleration spike follows.
These acceleration and deceleration trends obviously follow some sort of cyclical pattern that are completely divorced from the incessant growth of atmospheric CO2 and/or other human-based activities.
Those are the stubborn facts, with the end result being that nature totally trumps human influence in regards to climate.
Conclusion? And the "tipping point" remains nothing more than factless hyperbole.
Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.
It is well known that airborne CO2 acts as a vegetation fertilizer, which fortunately for the world, has produced a vast 'greening' of nature. Some 70% of greening is attributed to increased CO2 fertilization say the NASA researchers.
In regards to agriculture crops, a new study has again determined that increased CO2 will produce greater yields.
This peer-reviewed study focused of rice and maize.
"Rice is the most consumed staple crop in the world and maize is close behind in rank as the third most important cereal crop. Their annual yields are consumed by billions of persons worldwide.....Pingale et al. report that elevated CO2 positively influenced the growth and productivity of both crops. Plant growth and yield parameters such as leaf area, stem dry weight, panicle dry weight, cob dry weight and grain number per cob were all significantly increased under elevated CO2. And the end result of these several enhancements was a CO2-induced increase in both rice and maize grain yield."
The included column chart from the study depicts the yield increases for both crops.
Similar to the current "expert" climate/energy policies being pushed on the unsuspecting citizens of multiple countries, the expert health policies pushed on the masses for the last 50+ years have been based on a dogmatic, consensus belief in a questionable hypothesis.
More on that specific hypothesis later.
In the U.S., starting with the 1970s, the air and water quality has been dramatically improving; the number of people who smoke has dropped like a stone; the pharmaceutical/medical/health care research complex has produced wondrous solutions for communicable diseases; and yet, despite all that good news, the overall health of Americans and their lifespans have in some respects actually declined.
As the chart depicts, the U.S. growth trend of chronic diseases (cancers, diabetes, heart disease, brain dysfunctions, stroke, and etc.) is at unsustainable levels, and it's just as bad all across the globe:
"While international agencies have been spending their funds in controlling infectious diseases, evidence of non-communicable [chronic] diseases reveals an alarming global pandemic and associated fatalities" (Strong et al, 2005)
Now, combine that with the chronic obesity epidemic - here and across the world. Is it any wonder that health care expenses are causing havoc for even the stoutest of economies?
Where did this explosion in growth of global chronic diseases come from?
Well as the latest scientific evidence is revealing, this unstoppable growth of chronic diseases is most likely a direct result of U.S politicians and government bureaucrats - during the '70's decade - accepting and promoting a very weak speculative research hypothesis. A hypothesis that had not been validated by any rigorous scientific evidence*.
That hypothesis, in it's most simplest terms, was the notion that eating fat and cholesterol killed people.
This acceptance and promotion of an unproven hypothesis lead to a dogmatic, consensus belief by doctors and dietitians that everyone needs to replace fats with carbohydrates.
And that became the foundation of the well promulgated high-carb and low-fat food pyramid concept, resulting in "experts" actually believing a breakfast of Pop Tarts and orange juice was more "healthy" than eggs, bacon, and black coffee.
The unintended consequence of this highly speculative hypothesis is our global epidemic of poor health and overweight. This epidemic was first identified around 1980 and by 1988 the CDC started the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
Yet the vast majority of doctors and dietitians still push on their patients the orthodox treatments and recommendations based on a bogus hypothesis, or if you prefer, junk science. (Go here to read about how wedded and malevolent the medical and dietitian establishments are in regards to protecting their consensus anti-science.)
The history, the politics, the narrative, and the lack of robust, proven scientific research supporting the entire consensus nutrition/diet framework is frankly eye-opening.
And surprise, it has an incredible amount of similarities with the consensus narrative, politics, advocacy, and policy tactics based on the unvalidated and unproven CO2 hypothesis of global warming and climate change.
Not to be forgotten, the consensus politics of climate science is also very vitriolic and intimidating.
*The recent recommendations of America's 'Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee', in regards to both dietary cholesterol and fat, substantiates that the original research behind the consensus health/nutrition policies was neither robust nor statistically/clinically significant.
Expert predictions about the negative impacts of climate change on bird populations are assessed in this study.
The scientists investigated the bird species that populate the mountain habitats of the Pacific Northwest. These habitats are considered by wildlife experts to be "among the most immediately susceptible to [the] effects of climate change."
Was the "expert" prediction correct that modern climate change (i.e., global warming) would have a significant negative impact on bird specie populations?
In fact, this peer-reviewed analysis determined that modern climate change was not negatively impacting these vulnerable habitats and bird populations.
".....the team of ten researchers conducted a total of 8404 point-count surveys at 3177 distinct survey point locations across the three parks during the breeding seasons of 2005-2014. From those surveys, 39 species (24 migratory and 15 "residents" that overwinter in the parks) were identified for population stability analyses."....."all but one species were either stable or increasing across the sampled points in the three parks" throughout the period of study (see Figure 1 below). Furthermore, the authors say they "found little evidence for upslope range shifts across the sampled region," adding that "no species increased at higher elevations while declining at lower elevations."
Based on this study's results, one could surmise that modern climate change has been of benefit to the bird species in the Pacific Northwest.
There is climate change.
And there will be climate change.
This peer-reviewed study produced the adjacent charts for the regional area of the American Southwest.
Although the study was primarily about climate modeling for future climate variability, it was focused on the severe climate variation of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
The charts provide ample factual proof, along with the study's own premise, that our modern climate change is not unprecedented.
Whether it be drought conditions or temperature extremes, the past climate was anything but stable.
Note that the bottom chart shows the modern recent warming (RW) finally returning to the levels of around 1000AD and the extended Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) period.
Simply stated: facts don't lie, and there is nothing humans can do to stop natural climate change; and, the extremes it produces without any help from CO2.
Additional historical charts.
Those "expert" climate models tell us what is supposed to happen in the world's climate due to the impact of human-induced global warming. Yet it seems that the models as climate soothsayers of severe weather events are essentially worthless.
Case in point, a new peer-reviewed study has examined the factual evidence regarding the increased frequency and increased intensity of hail storms that CO2-centric, global warming climate models predict; and the study has found the predictions to be without merit.
"A test of this model-based hypothesis was recently performed by Ni et al. (2017) for China. Using data from 2,254 locations that they obtained from the Chinese National Meteorological Information Center, the eight researchers examined trends in both the occurrence of hail days (frequency) and the mean size of hail (intensity) over the period 1980-2015"..."Ni et al. conclude that these observational changes "imply a weakened [frequency and] intensity of hailstorms in China in recent decades." And that finding does not bode well for climate models, which predict that just the opposite should be occurring."
The study's graphs depict that over the last 35 years the large-sized hail stones that wreak the most havoc on property and agriculture have been trending smaller, not larger across all recorded storms from the reporting 2,254 weather stations.
In addition, during the same extended period, the proportion of all hail storms that produce the extremely large stones has been clearly trending down.
ScienceCheck Conclusion: Climate models can't predict squat.
The opinions on climate change from analysts, researchers, and academics continue to change as the evidence of global warming - or lack thereof - is presented.
This recent article reminds readers that global warming is not a 'global' phenomenon since many areas of the world exhibit cooling, as the adjacent image reveals.
Then there is this recent article that refers to a published peer-reviewed study by a group of climate scientists who have found the current land-based temperature measurement capabilities to be less than stellar and even unsatisfactory in many cases. The scientists go on to suggest an alternative measuring methodology being deployed globally that the U.S. has already developed.
Finally, there is this recent article indicating the forever changing "settled science" in regards to the predicted influence of CO2 on global warming. As the evidence grows that global warming has not been as great, nor as fast, as the climate models predicted, the experts (and the IPCC) have been continually forced to reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.
Conclusion? Much to the dismay of many, the actual "global warming" is having a significant impact on science in a way they did not want. It's just another case of those stubborn facts that so often plague the elites.
Or, to put it another way: climate doomsday is delayed for another millennium.
Frankly, little, if any, emission impact on present climate change based on new Chinese peer-reviewed research.
The chart on the left represents a 341-year proxy temperature reconstruction for the southwest region of China.
Clearly, unprecedented temperatures occurred during the mid to late 1700s. This record shows that modern temperatures, which supposedly have been influenced by human emissions, are yet to rival temperatures from much earlier periods.
Also, one can discern a cyclical pattern that the study's scientists attributed to nature climate oscillations - trace greenhouse gases do not explain this periodical climate pattern.
The chart on the right represents a 500-year streamflow analysis for a western region of China.
Again, a pattern of constant change, from low to high to low, appears to be due to natural climate variations. The late 20th and early 21st century observations seem remarkably similar to those in the distant past, suggesting that Co2 emissions are not a factor influencing streamflow.
Fact Check: As these two studies from China indicate, modern industrial/consumer emissions from fossil fuels are not a major component of climate change. This research adds to the huge compilation of prior peer-reviewed studies that confirm modern climate change is not out of the ordinary, and highly likely due to natural causes, not human-induced as speculated my many.
The widely held global warming belief is that human Co2 greenhouse gases will soon cause, via a positive feedback loop, a rapid tipping point warming of the lower atmosphere, resulting in a destruction of Earth's surface and an eventual decimation of civilization. Many who believe in this catastrophic global warming scenario even speak of the potential of Earth becoming another uninhabitable Venus.
As it turns out, satellites are situated perfectly to be the premier 24/7 monitoring system of the atmosphere, thus allowing scientists to measure and watch for a constant warming acceleration - i.e., indicating the existence of the hypothetical tipping point.
Over the last 3 full years, the satellites have measured a lower atmosphere (aka LT) temperature that has exceeded past temperatures of the previous 36 years. The same 3-year warmest temperature phenomenon has also been experienced on Earth's surface.
In the case of the lower atmosphere, the temperature rise has been about a half-degree Celsius - that's during almost 4 decades of satellite measurements. The increase possibly has raised the absolute lower atmosphere temps to about -4.0°C, which is still significantly below zero.
Conclusion #1: The absolute temperature of the lower atmosphere has not been raised significantly despite multiple decades of human Co2 emissions. The current level of LT temperatures are not likely in the least to produce an imminent global warming catastrophe, nor a feared "tipping point."
The included chart plots both the temperature anomalies (column plots) over the last 3 warm years and the moving 36-month (3-year) per century warming/cooling rate of the LT.
The global warming catastrophe premise requires that trace Co2 gases produce a positive feedback loop that creates the rapid and runaway tipping point of accelerating temperature increase.
Yet, despite the last three years being the warmest in terms of satellite measurements, the plot of the rate of global warming per century has collapsed over the last three years. Instead of the proposed positive feedback producing ever faster atmospheric temperature increases, the plot reveals a very strong warming trend that accelerated during the 2015/16 El Nino phenomenon, which then quickly decelerated to a per century trend of 4.3 degrees Celsius - and, in the recent past, similar deceleration patterns have lead to outright negative per century cooling trends.
Conclusion #2: There is absolutely zero empirical evidence from the most advanced and sophisticated scientific technology available that Co2 emissions produce a constant positive atmospheric feedback leading to an ever faster acceleration of global warming. The familiar strong acceleration and then strong deceleration repeating pattern is representative of natural climate variation, not of a human-induced runaway overheating of the climate.
Conclusion #3: Since Conclusions #1 and #2 are derived from the actual empirical science evidence, policymakers at the national, state, and local levels have no rational basis to make large expenditures and impose unnecessary regulations in an attempt to stop what has now become a fact-less, irrational, anti-science belief of human-caused catastrophic global warming and climate change "tipping points."
Notes: In the earlier version of this article, the wrong chart was used. The satellite temperature anomalies and 3-year warming trends calculated and plotted using Excel; datasets used to produce monthly anomalies in an equal-weighted combination of two satellite datasets - RSS and UAH. From Dec. 1979 to Dec. 2017, the LT anomaly increase of the combined average dataset was +0.54 degree Celsius. The satellite acceleration/deceleration climate pattern in the past has ranged from a +24.0ºC to a -23.1ºC per century trend for 36-month periods. Observed measurements represent scientific empirical evidence. Climate models are not scientific empirical evidence but instead just formula-based speculative prediction/forecasting tools that are unable to accurately portray future climate conditions. At best, climate models are 'what-if' scenario generators that are not capable of identifying the actual future 'what-if' real-world outcome.
The headlines of 2017 were amazingly exceptional in terms of pure fringe political extremism and crazed cultural wackiness.
Below are 50 favorites from the treasure trove collection of over 19,000 headlines during Trump's first year, which can be found here on a single page (depending on your connection, might take a minute to load).
A collection of climate change and global warming headlines from the past month. The list also includes a smattering of other science/research/political topics of interest.
The entire list of 2017 science headlines - about 6,500 - can be found on this page.
==> 1. it can't be proven in the real world, it's simply not verifiable
==> 2. climate models using this theory as a foundational element have proven to be unreliable
==> 3. it can't account for the the wide variation in temperature levels and changes across the globe, whether the period is short-term or long-term.
And that's not even considering all the failed catastrophic predictions that the "theory" inspires in abundance, yet never seem to come about.
In regards to bullet point #3 above, two prior posts (here and here) provide the indisputable empirical evidence that CO2 growth has not produced a constant, runaway global warming acceleration - not even close.
Then there is the salient point that the September 2017 average monthly global temperature is similar to some observed during the 1997-99 period, as noted in this article.
Clearly, CO2 is not the powerful accelerant, nor determinant, that is going to overwhelm natural warming and cooling cycles as hypothesized.
Which leads to another observation about natural global warming and climate change: past empirical evidence from earlier in the 20th century confirms that Earth's natural climate oscillations can produce periods of significant temperature change increases that even exceed the most recent temperature climate change.
Case in point: September 1944 versus September 2017, as seen on the adjacent chart.
Certainly, there is no disagreement that in 1944 the atmospheric levels of CO2 were significantly lower (311 ppm) than now (407 ppm). The amount of yearly CO2 emissions per year prior to 1944 were a fraction of today's consumer/industrial annual production of emission tonnes.
Yet the earlier global temperature changes exceed the September 2017 measurements.
For example, as the chart depicts for the 240-month (20-yr) period ending September 2017, the global temperature change was +0.08°C. In other words, after 20 years of massive CO2 emissions that's all the global warming that took place.
In contrast, the 240-month (20-Yr) period ending September 1944 was a +0.58°C global temperature change - substantially greater than recent warming.
That +0.58°C warming over the earlier 20-year period was produced by natural climate change drivers, not CO2 emissions.
As the chart reveals, every single medium and long-term period ending at September 1944 had global warming changes that exceeded their respective spans ending in September 2017. (Although not shown on the chart, this was also true for the short-term periods of 1-Yr, 2-Yr, and 3-Yr.)
And, there are other earlier extended periods prior to the 1960's, where global temperature warming change is greater than relevant recent periods.
Not very likely, since it is without question that this and other climate science empirical evidence does not support, nor validate, the foundational Arrhenius greenhouse global warming theory that dominates the consensus orthodoxy.
Simply stated, it's a dog theory that has gone dogmatic without a bone of evidence. And another admission to a collection of 'those stubborn facts.'
Prior global temperature charts.
Note: Source of HadCRUT global temperature data. Excel was used to calculate/chart for the various periods of temperature change based on month endpoints of September 1944 and September 2017.
That's the probable reason Gore's latest documentary failed miserably at the box office versus his first 2006 climate documentary. People have grown weary of the never ending apocalyptic scenarios that the real world reality constantly slaps down.
Unfortunately, current journalism keeps spreading this anti-scientific nonsense, such as the "Nibiru Apocalypse" which has no valid beneficial public purpose. Only the doomsday perpetrators and publishers seem to benefit.
The Trump administration inherited a climate change situation from the Obama presidency of an unprecedented 5-year global warming rate for the period since 1950.
During the modern era, Democrat presidencies have endangered the world with policies that boost acceleration of climate temperatures. And it's always the GOP saving the day by ushering in energy/climate policies that lowers the Earth's climbing fever.
Obama not only destroyed U.S. health care with his policies, but also came damn close to boiling the whole freaking planet, no?
And due to an unexpected electoral victory, Trump and his team will continue that long Republican tradition of "hitting the ground running," which, as the graph above shows, climate-healing has already started!
'Winning,' ain't it grand?
Prior global temperature charts.
Note: Source of HadCRUT global temperature data. Excel was used to calculate 5-year slopes (Excel slope function) for each month; then used to produce moving 10.0 year averages of the 5-year slopes.
There are climate doomsday proponents and alleged "experts" who fear that Earth is warming so fast that it will soon reach hothouse Venus-like temperatures, primarily due to humans continuing global emissions of CO2, a trace greenhouse gas.
To summarize this alarmist position, the feared extreme global warming and climate change would result in the demise of all humans and civilization. More recent claims of similar outcomes, include: the '6th great mass extinction' and the one referred to as the 'human extinction'.
Indeed, Venus is quite uninhabitable for humans with surface and lower atmospheric temperatures in excess of 800°F (+400°C). This planet is an extreme hothouse that had a runaway warming tipping point in its past.
But.....do the scientific facts and latest empirical evidence indicate that sort of "runaway tipping point" and extreme warming fate is even remotely possible for Earth in the future?
As a starting point, the above chart plots the gold-standard satellite warming measurement trends of Earth's lower troposphere, and plots the cumulative CO2 increase, since 1979. (These are the rolling per century temperature trends by month.)
None of the current trends, as of the end of September 2017, reveal a significantly high acceleration of lower atmospheric warming that would indicate a Venus tipping point of runaway global warming is imminent, despite the growing amount of CO2.
From the chart, it is clear there are very abrupt changes in acceleration and deceleration of temperatures, which strongly suggest powerful natural climate factors are in the driver's seat, not human CO2 emissions. The chart depicts short-term warming trend peaks that correlate well with recent and prior El Niño warming periods.
Focusing just on the above chart's 12-month (bright red curve) and 24-month (bright blue) and 36-month (bright green) trends, one can visualize the quick shifts in atmospheric temperature direction, from warming to cooling and then back to warming.
Again, these abrupt trend changes are associated with known short-term natural climate forces.
The long-term 20-year acceleration shown alone in this above chart confirms that the short-term changes in acceleration/deceleration are somewhat reflected in the longer trends but with a much reduced variation - i.e. - a smaller trend range.
Instead of a huge trend range of +80 degrees per century acceleration or a -80 degrees per century acceleration, the 20-year trend variation is much narrower, from +0.5 to +2.5 degrees per century.
And this satellite 20-year trend evidence confirms that the longer temperature trend has actually declined since a March 2004 peak, indicating that its relationship with the steady growth trend of atmospheric CO2 is rather weak, at best. One could surmise it's more of an inverse relationship during this time span.
Or, one could surmise that this reflects the proven and much investigated 'pause' in global warming.
Going back again to shorter term trends, this above graph represents the moving 12-month trends over the critical 31 months for the last 2 major El Niños: 1998 and 2016. The 16-month mark is the peak 12-month trend for each event. Plus, each temperature trend plot includes the 15 months prior to the peak, and after the peak.
Based on the gold-standard empirical evidence, it can safely be said that the increased atmospheric CO2 levels of 2016 had little acceleration impact, if any, since the earlier period - at a much lower level CO2 - exhibited greater atmospheric temperature acceleration.
Fact Check Conclusion: Large increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, be they from natural or human sources, are not turning Earth into the next Venus. The prediction of a Venus-like runaway warming future is quackery.
In the scheme of important global priorities and concerns, the accelerated warming of Earth due to CO2 emission should not even rank in a list of priorities, per the real empirical evidence.
(It truly does make one wonder why really smart people would be tempted to utter such anti-science 'Venus' nonsense. Or, why they choose to ignore the known empirical evidence and scientific research challenging the wrongheaded Gore orthodoxy.)
Okay, this one last chart to put the entire Venus vs. Earth comparison into proper context.
On an annual basis, Earth's lower troposphere (5km high) averages around -4.25°C. In contrast, the Venus lower troposphere (5km) temp is around +430°C. The above chart reveals the gigantic difference in these temperature levels.
Obviously, Earth's LT temps are not accelerating to match the outlandish Venus temps, even after 30 years of large scale industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
One reason that we are not becoming the next Venus is that its atmosphere is 96% CO2. In comparison, our atmosphere is less than one-tenth of 1% composed of CO2. And even if our CO2 levels doubled, it would still be less than one-tenth of 1% of the atmosphere.
The actual known laboratory physics indicates Earth's temps will only increase between 1-2°C after a CO2 doubling - not some 400+ degrees.
In addition, Venus is a lot closer to the sun and its rotation is 243 Earth days, not 24 hours - it is basically baking in the solar furnace all the time.
And Venus has an atmospheric pressure that is some 90 times greater than Earth's, which is going to create incredible hot temperatures on its own.
Simply stated: Earth will not turn into Venus unless a major catastrophic event (asteroid, comet, an alien 'tractor' beam weapon, etc.) changes Earth's position in the solar system.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, rolling month trends, the resultant per century trends, and to chart the dataset plots. Lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - an equal weighting monthly average dataset used in chart's plot; NOAA's atmospheric CO2 dataset. For Earth vs. Venus comparison: a 30yr baseline was calculated from this UAH file of daily Kelvin temps and then monthly UAH LT anomalies applied to result in absolute temps for each month from 1979. Venus 5km LT absolute temps found on this web page.
In her article, she provides zero empirical evidence for her claims about the future, much like the shameful and egregious tactics of Master Gore himself.
Other than using hearsay and anecdotal evidence and selective opinions, there's not much substance to her entire article's body, including the last paragraph of pure speculations:
"...destroying the livelihood of European farmers, disrupting the international food supply, and potentially causing a food crisis in Europe."
And like the really ugly side of Gorism, she ladles her article with smears of persons and organizations, instead of just sticking to a factual account of what is being alleged.
And, she could have added some real value to the debate if she had actually spent some time discussing the contested scientific viewpoints in a manner that did not represent her obviously shallow, very one-sided representation.
After 8 years of Obama-science and mainstream media press release science reporting, one gets awful tired of seeing this type of claptrap.
I consider 'The Federalist' a worthy conservative voice that brings some much needed rational discussion to a wide variety of subjects. Unfortunately, this article is well below their standards.
Conservative outlets preaching alarmism and doomsday-crap is not in the least helpful when skeptics are constantly battling the greens' penchant for doing so on an almost daily basis.
Nadir not in sight yet. Nothing to stop what the biased press does naturally.
Stories/headlines from October 15-21, 2017
"Reef-building corals thrive within hot-acidified and deoxygenated waters".
And that title pretty much sums up the study findings that corals exposed to greater natural extremes prosper as well as those exposed to less harsh conditions.
Be it extreme water temperatures, extreme acidity, and/or extreme deoxygenation, corals exhibit a real world adaptability to survive and thrive that is in contrast to long-held dogma of laboratory researchers.
CO2science.org has an informative write-up of the study, including the adjacent charts and the below summation.
"Consequently, in light of all of the above, it would be wise for policy makers to give more consideration to the impacts of ocean acidification and warming as observed from natural environment analogs as opposed to more restrictive laboratory based analyses. And when such consideration is given, it appears that corals are well equipped to deal with future changes in their environment, be they naturally or anthropogenically induced."
Of course, popular doomsday prophets continue to badger policymakers and the public with frightful scenarios that human CO2 emissions will destroy, or already have destroyed, the planet's coral reefs.
Yet, the growing volume of actual scientific research, such as this highlighted study, clearly refutes the falsity of such alarmist prophecies.
The below link list of coral reef articles, which examine recent research and empirical evidence refuting the popularized orthodox doom-dogma; and have been completely ignored by MSM fake-news operations since they prove the fear-mongering is nothing more than that.
These listed reviews of scientific research and analyses indisputably destroy the "97% consensus" alarmism that anti-science prophets of doom spew, including that of Al Gore, Cameron Diaz, Bill McKibben, Emma Watson, Obama, Leo DiCaprio, Chuck Schumer, Jessica Alba, Mark Ruffalo, Pharrell Williams, Michael Mann, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other celebrities.
In essence, these celebrity "experts" essentially repeat simple scare-mongering of global warming and climate change without the merits of any known empirical evidence research. Again, they actually spew anti-science.
Besides the selection of 2017 article titles noted above, there is an abundance of peer-reviewed studies stretching back over the years in regards to coral scientific research that debunks coral reef alarmism.
Additional 'C3' articles of peer-reviewed research.
2017 saw the first major hurricanes strike the continental U.S in Texas and Florida in almost 12 years, with multiple Caribbean islands, including Puerto Rico, suffering major hurricane damage. Certainly hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria will be long remembered by residents of the respective devastated areas.
Although the lengthy span of no major hurricanes was quite unexpected and unusual for many weather observers, has that now somehow made the 2017 hurricane season 'unusual' and 'unprecedented' in the scientific context?
The factual answer to that is simple: 'no'.
The 2017 season has not been very exceptional when compared against the historical empirical evidence, as hurricane science expert, Philip Klotzbach, clearly documents - see the adjacent table images.
As the top table shows, so far the very busy 2017 season in the Atlantic basin does exceed the 1981-2010 median of various measurements; but the last 2 columns of the table depict a 2017 season (so far) that is not very 'unusual' or 'exceptional' when compared against the hurricane season activity records stretching back to 1851.
To summarize, the 2017 season in the Atlantic region is not even ranked among the top 5 historically in 6 of 7 key metrics (so far) through mid-October.
In the bottom table, Klotzbach depicts the entire Northern Hemisphere's 2017 tropical cyclone activity versus the activity for the 1981-2010 period.
Two words to describe the 2017 Northern Hemisphere's season in historical context: rather mundane.
"While Atlantic has obviously had very active #hurricane season, N. Hemisphere has experienced average TC activity by most metrics to date."
Unfortunately, despite this clear empirical evidence, the climate change and global warming doomsday alarmists attempt to portray the 2017 season as a sign of CO2-induced climate catastrophe - and that is not being well accepted by the actual hurricane experts (here, here, here) who have been on the front lines of tropical cyclone activity and impact research.
It's another case of 'those stubborn facts' deflating the typical over-the-top hyperbole and exaggerations from 'greens' who represent the extreme loons and left-wing fringe anti-science ignorance and/or propaganda.
Of course, this not the final word on the 2017 season. It is not over and could make those above 'so-fars' quite irrelevant.
Worm greenhouse emissions (primarily methane) from our global ocean sediment buddies could lead to that proverbial tipping point - initiating a runaway global warming and catastrophic climate change scenario.
"The findings, which have been published in the journal Scientific Reports, point to a so far neglected source of greenhouse gases in the sea and could have a profound impact on decision makers."
One wonders if this is the missing causal link that climate models need to incorporate in order to address their continued prediction failure?
Included in this simply remarkable study are the methane emissions of clams. Certainly, the gaseous output from these two sea creatures will be disastrous for the world.
It should be obvious that these scientists need a lot more $$$ funding to determine the total extent of global ocean farting, which as they say:
"...implying that globally, apparently harmless bivalve animals at the bottom of the world’s oceans may in fact be contributing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for.”...“These small yet very abundant animals may play an important, but so far neglected, role in regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases in the sea.”
And then there is certainly the expensive research needed to determine if land-based worms, as pictured above, are another doomsday greenhouse culprit. If yes, big monies will be required to fund Monsanto so that a new class of global-warming pesticides can be brought to market in time to save civilization and our human species.
Or, like so many other climate "science" studies, maybe this one also isn't worth a fart.
The study reviewed Catalonia emergency room admissions of those with cardiovascular events during both heat waves and cold waves. The total number of heart incidents was substantially higher during periods of cold versus warm/hot weather.
Per the study's analysis:
"...they used the self-controlled case series statistical methodology to assess the relative incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of hospitalizations during the hot and cold waves in comparison to reference time periods with normal temperature exposure. Heat waves were defined as a period of at least 3 days in July and August in which the daily maximum temperatures were higher than the 95th percentile of daily maximum temperature for those two months. Cold waves were similarly defined as periods of at least 3 days in January and February when daily minimum temperatures were lower than the 95th percentile of daily minimum temperatures for those two months. IRRs were adjusted for age, time interval and air pollution. The number of hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diseases during January and February over the period of study was 22,611, whereas there were only 17,017 during July and August."
The red outline rectangle in the above image reveals the much reduced number of cardiovascular events during warmer weather.
Couple the increased cardiovascular incidence during the cold months along with the increased incidence of influenza/colds/pneumonia during the same periods, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that any type of global climate warming brings welcome relief from major health concerns and potential death due to the hands of colder temperature weather.
"And this being the case, perhaps we should all pray for a little global warming."
Additional peer-reviewed studies regarding health benefits of warmer weather and climates.
As this article explains, Australian government officials have pursued and implemented a politically correct embracement of subsidized renewable energy sources - primarily solar and wind.
The consequences of unproven technologies, and the pouring of taxpayer and consumer monies into the wide-opened maws of renewable industry's investors, has predictably inflicted substantial damage on Australia.
"An endgame is now underway in the renewable energy scam that has been responsible for destroying the nation’s electricity industry as a low-cost, efficient and self-managing sector...countering the debilitating effect of the self-imposed cancer is beyond the end of the beginning it has a long way to go before we have anything like the market we once had."
More specifically, Australia's green renewable fiasco has produced results that have harmed consumers and businesses in an impactful manner
"The upshot has been a doubling of wholesale prices, from $40 to $80 per MWh. Under existing policies, these will probably increase further until they correspond to the costs of wind at $120 per MWh. In the process, system reliability is also degraded. The costs to households are a lift in electricity bills of about one-third but the cost to commercial users are far greater and must force the closure of many factories and other activities that produce internationally tradable goods and services."
Where does that leave the Aussie elites and politicians that initiated this malignancy in the Australian body?
Although no politicians have come forward admitting the stupendous gullibility and/or stupidity regarding their own promotion of this renewable disaster, at least important steps to fix the mess are on the table for consideration or already being discussed.
The article's author describes what needs to be done to get 'Oz' on the path of sustainable healing, but full recovery from the green tumor may not be "full".
Approximately 4,800 science headlines from a wide range of blog & MSM sources for the year 2017 (thru September 30).
As before, this collection is primarily one of climate and energy headline links.
In addition, there are links of other science interest.
Headlines links are mostly in chronological order, with newest-to-oldest in a descending manner down the page.
Note: link for the January-September 2017 politics/culture headlines.
Every once in a while, an anti-science, climate doomsday-porn pimp will rouse me from my self-imposed, sabbatical blogging slumber.
Indeed, this recent article by Ron Clutz regarding an alt-left, social justice warrior scientist - seemingly with a pimp’s penchant for exaggerated alarmism porn - certainly was a motivational prod for moi.
My conclusion? Sarah E. Myhre, Ph.D is a scientist that no one should believe, as she is obviously all activist, with a neurotic obsession to express politically correct platitudes and nostrums. (And I am sure many in the public are as unimpressed with her objectivity as I am when she reflexively spouts her alt-left "Trump is a white supremacist" schtick.)
As her own home web page indicates, this "scholar" is more about social justice and virtue signaling than anything to do with real scientific inquiry and veracity.
As for scientific empirical evidence, she is similar to all the alt-left personages who are eager to make bold claims without any actual evidence of scientific reality (no, climate models and their associated predictions are not empirical evidence).
Ron's article, and his earlier one about her, demonstrates the self-inflicted wounds of her belief system trumping the real world climate data.
In the case of her recent claim that science links storms with climate change, she reveals her alt-left leanings with that empirically bogus claim. There is no evidence whatsoever that any given hurricane storm over the last 20 years, be it Harvey, Irma and so on, is a result of climate change. NONE. ZILCH, NADA.
To say otherwise amounts to a blatant disregard of the actual empirical observed evidence and known science.
Myhre and others of her ilk will long be remembered as the root cause that produced the large current public mistrust of the scientific community and journalism.
Finally, she is definitely not a person who should be allowed a seat at the table of rational and objective scientific debate or important policy-making discussions. Again, her own home page proves she is nothing more than a political lefty SJW hack masquerading as a scholar-scientist in a white lab coat.
The Georgia special election "expert" polls persistently reported that Democrat Jon Ossoff was leading in the polls and would result in a win for the left-liberal complex. This was supposedly a election not about each candidate but about being a negative referendum on Trump and his administration.
The Democrat elites and experts convinced themselves that Americans would show their true feelings about Trump.
Yep, they indeed did that, in spades.
By election eve, the two candidates were polling at a standoff, and now the results are in: the GOP candidate won by 5 points, yet spent some $20 million less than Ossoff.
Wow. Simply another laughable moment for the elite experts.
Seriously, are "experts" almost always wrong, just about everything? Well, yes, that would be a fairly accurate portrayal.
Here are just a few more recent examples from the past few days of headlines, outside of politics, that document the continuing saga of expert-failure.
After years of claiming otherwise, consensus climate experts now confirm that the global warming hiatus actually existed for an extended period, which was a global condition opposite their predictions.
Recent studies confirm why consensus climate expert predictions are almost always wrong: computer climate models relied on can't predict squat.
Research on clean-green battery storage used in electric vehicles finds it is actually a bigger pollutant source than fossil-fueled gasoline vehicle transportation, contrary to science expert claims.
Empirical evidence continues to substantiate that solar projects that politicians and experts so love are vast sinkholes of worthless subsidies and failure for the taxpayers/consumers.
Ooops, the science is never settled - we've long been told by experts that homo sapiens evolved close to 200,000 years ago, but newest fossil evidence finds we are about 100,000 years older than that.
Remember, experts say that to lose weight you have to exercise a lot and 'burn off' calories - WRONG!
Just trust us, parents: Absolutely, the government doctor experts know best for your child - uh-oh, new study finds significant link with mercury in vaccines and autism.
Again, just a few recent headlines covering different fields that are not unusual, in the sense that those "experts" the mainstream media and elected officials rely are often wildly wrong.
Whatever the claim, it pays to be always skeptical and to challenge consensus orthodoxy and opinion.
Note: Since the Trump election, we are on a extended sabbatical from blogging-burnout. Maybe in the future, after a recovery from reading too much MSM doomsday alarmism, this blog will resume regular publishing. 'C3' blog was started the first month of Obama's administration. Since then, over those 8+ years, many more skeptic blogs have been started and prospered with growing audiences. Here is the list of skeptic climate blogs that are read by tens of thousands on a daily basis, including moi.
A new focused effort by a team of researchers analyzed 26 decades of hurricane activity, covering the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) through 2012 for the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico water regions.
As most scientists agree, be they orthodox or skeptic, the world has been modestly warming since the end of the LIA.
Yet the proponents of global warming alarmism "science" have claimed that severe weather, such as hurricanes, has increased dramatically due to this rather modest warming.
These expert claims were primarily based on simulations from climate models (and less so on the actual empirical evidence) which has become a sure fire methodology of producing bass-ackwards fake science.
This new empirical study presents the evidence from the last 260 years of hurricane activity and the result is irrefutable as the adjacent chart reveals. Not only has hurricane activity not increased across the wide areas examined, the activity has actually been on a slow declining trend.
"In their intriguing analysis published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, the four-member research team of Rojo-Garibaldi et al. developed a new database of historical hurricane occurrences in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, spanning twenty-six decades over the period 1749 to 2012. Statistical analysis of the record revealed "the hurricane number is actually decreasing in time," which finding is quite stunning...as the Mexican research team indicates, "when analyzing the entire time series built for this study, i.e., from 1749 to 2012, the linear trend in the number of hurricanes is decreasing"."
What truly makes this a head-exploding study for celebrity "scientists" is not only the fact the findings are the opposite of what they predicted, but that this Mexican scientific team tied the decline to natural solar events, not human CO2 emissions. (See more information on the study.)
But after a natural warming ENSO 'spike,' such as the one covering the 2015-2016 period, Earth's frequent natural reaction is to enter a cooling phase, which this time apparently commenced after the peak in February 2016.
The adjacent chart reveals the exact same lower troposphere (LT) warming and cooling spikes as the prior chart, but using a different plotting style.
This different style does not depict as much detail regarding the actual monthly temperatures as the earlier chart did. This style chart leaves a stronger impression that monthly global warming has been on a continuous upswing, instead of the actual frequent ups/downs of monthly climate temperature change.
For this chart, we changed from a simple 12-month average for both CO2 and temperatures to a 36-month average for both. In addition, a linear temperature trend curve (see dashed maroon line) has been added.
#1. As in the prior article, this chart indicates a long-term global warming trend of 1.07°C by 2100AD - this includes the most recent warming phase of ENSO. [Linear trends are not predictions - they have no predictive power since over the short-term they can change dramatically.]
#2. The chart's 36-month simple moving average (red curve) of LT temperatures indicates an extended pause - i.e. the 'Hiatus' - in overall global warming, from approximately mid-1999 to mid-2015.
#3. The chart's CO2 36-month moving average of ppm levels reveals a continuous linear growth status, whereas the 36-month satellite temp average is anything but.
The datasets used for this chart and the prior article's chart are exactly the same. However, the plot styles are different providing a different context of the cooling/warming of global temperatures. The different context is valuable and there will be future 'C3' charts depicting different plot styles (providing additional context for the reader) using the same dataset and sub-datasets.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, trends, and to chart the dataset plots. Lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - an equal weighting monthly average dataset used in chart's plot; NOAA's atmospheric CO2 dataset.
The gold-standard for climate science temperature measurements is produced by the advanced, 24/7 monitoring accomplished by orbiting satellites.
Unlike the deployed small number of geographically-sparse surface thermometers, satellites essentially cover the entire world on a continuous basis.
And unlike earthly thermometers, which more often than not reside within known hot-spots, such as metro airports and urban heat sinks of concrete, asphalt and steel, satellite measurements are not affected by human structures, not by transit activities, not by industrial production, and not by power generation.
Satellites are the only available technology scientists have that truly measure temperatures in a global fashion, without all the inherent biases influencing surface-based thermometers.
This unrivaled, sophisticated technology has been performing its empirical measurement duties over the last 38 full years, which the adjacent chart is a plot of. Each month's temperature average is shown by an orange circle (each circle is the average of the two major lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH). The red curve is a moving 12-month simple average of the monthly datapoints.
In addition, the chart includes a plot of NOAA's monthly atmospheric CO2 level (see black dots) and its moving 12-month simple average (grey curve with arrowhead).
#1. As measured, the monthly CO2 levels continue to steadily increase at a linear rate, which if maintained, will almost reach an atmospheric level of 555ppm by 2100AD.
#2. As measured, the temperature trend for the last 38 years (starting with January 1979) indicates an increase of 1.07°C by 2100AD, if that trend is maintained.
#3. As measured, the global average temperatures sporadically gyrate up/down, which the red curve clearly depicts.
#4. As measured, there are very obvious significant warming/cooling spikes that took place in the recent past.
#5. As measured, global LT temperatures spiked warmer during the 2015-2016 period, achieving the highest recorded temperature during February 2016, exceeding the previous high from April 1998 by some +0.12°C. March 2016 was the only other month exceeding the April 1998 measurement (approximately by+0.005°C).
#6. As measured, global temperatures typically spike down after a strong spike up.
#7. As measured, LT global temperatures have declined considerably from the February 2016 high to the year's low of December 2016 - an average global temperature that is below both the December 1987 and December 1998 global temperatures (see magenta-tinted circles), respectively 29 and 18 years ago.
#8. As measured, this gold-standard empirical evidence reveals that only 12% of global LT temperature datapoints since December 1987 were higher.
#9. As measured, the combined RSS and UAH dataset averages show an extended pause in the overall warming - i.e. the hiatus - that stretched across a span from about 1999 to the beginning of 2015.
The below points should be viewed as opinions, or if one wants to be fancy about it, conclusions and assessments. While they are opinions, the actual empirical evidence from the satellites - the climate science gold-standard - is quite supportive.
Regarding that last point, consensus climate science has proposed a hypothesis on the claim that climate physics dictates that rising atmospheric CO2 levels will warm the atmosphere substantially, thus causing a positive feedback loop, which will then continuously accelerate warming until a tipping point of runaway temperatures take place, turning Earth into the next Venus. This one simple sentence is a nutshell summation of the supposed complex climate physics of "dangerous" global warming that has actually been tested.
The result of that 38-year long real test is that the gold-standard satellite empirical evidence clearly invalidates this hypothesis of positive feedback(s) leading to runaway, catastrophic warming.
Fortunately for the world and its populace, the climate science dogmatic consensus is robustly without any scientific empirical merit. It may indeed get warmer but the catastrophic predictions are not connected to science reality.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, trends, and to chart the dataset plots.
It's been widely documented that just like today's mainstream news media, science has gone down the rabbit hole of fakery, lies, deceptions, omissions, trickery, and just plain pure fraud in order to pursue favored political agendas.
Fortunately, the invaluable Retractionwatch.com site is dedicated to the dissemination of information regarding the growth of scientific misdeeds.
Related, over the last 8 years, deceptive-science by the climate "expert" elites has also grown to unmatched levels.
With the start of the Trump administration only a few weeks away, bringing in a new era of leadership unlikely to condone further fraud (and in fact may pursue investigations of), it has the establishment climate science truly running scared.
Over the last few years, there have been more than a few interesting articles about the anti-science behavior of scientists and the media - topics that the below article links touch on in a variety of ways.
It is unequivocally true that climate change, both mild and extreme, is always happening - paleoclimatology research evidence establishes that.
There is no debate that climate change existed prior to humans' impact on Earth, and will continue regardless of whether human CO2 emissions persist or cease.
Scientists continue to investigate past climate change events to better understand modern climate change, including extreme drought.
Case in point: scientists recently published peer-reviewed research that identified extreme drought periods on Canada's Vancouver Island, specifically the British Columbia Tsable River region.
Their research confirmed that since 1520AD, and prior to the instrumental record, extreme droughts took place that were of equal severity to those of modern droughts.
"Severe summer streamflow droughts are impacting many watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Small coastal basins that are the primary water source for most communities and essential to Pacific salmon populations have been particularly affected...Explaining 63% of the instrumental streamflow variability...Our findings suggest that since 1520, 21 droughts occurred that were more extreme than recent “severe” events like those in 2003 and 2009. Recent droughts are therefore not anomalous relative to the ~400 year pre-instrumental record.....The influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on instrumental and modeled Tsable River summer streamflow is likely linked to the enhanced role of snowmelt in determining summer discharge during cool phases."
Past extreme drought events are clear examples of continuous natural climate change that the modern era cannot escape. Humans do not cause climate change, it just happens.
But "experts" and climate models provide a never-ending loop of sinking and re-floating of a wide assortment of climate change predictions, forecasts and scenarios.
The weather/climate researchers seem unable to embrace the humility and reality that their computer simulation predictions rarely stay afloat for any length of time before being sent down to deep and cold watery graves.
A recent noteworthy example of a failed prediction is the Hurricane Matthew event.
More specifically, climate model output has been predicting that CO2-induced global warming and climate change would produce more frequent, and more intense, cyclones/hurricanes that would continuously terrorize many coastal populations.
Yet those frightening predictions keep doing a 'Titanic' on the expert model forecasts.
And actually, there is a logical reason for that happening: climate models can't predict squat.
Per the latest peer-reviewed scientific research:
"...Camargo and Wing write that (5) "efforts on modeling improvements, from convective parameterizations to new numerical methods and dynamical cores, also need to continue to occur." And "most of all," as they continue, they say that (6) "what is needed is a better theoretical understanding of what sets the frequency of TCs," noting that (7) "we could make much more confident climate change projections if we had a firmer theoretical expectation of what should happen."
"In conclusion, therefore, they state that (8) "despite the recent advances, there is still need for a substantial community effort to improve simulation of TCs in climate models on all time scales."
Essentially, even after burning through multi-billions of taxpayer monies, the models still can't predict squat due to the inescapable fact that experts require a "firmer theoretical expectation of what should happen."
Message to Trump from climate scientists: "We don't know what we're doing but please send more money anyways, ASAP!"
Based on this film, it would appear the anti-Trumpers have a serious case against the new administration's view of catastrophic climate change on snowmen genocide.
Luckily, we can now share this new video with all of skeptical comrades in hopes they can step up and stop Trump's onslaught regarding Obama's green regulations.
This is one snowflake we can't allow to go into meltdown mode. Help the snowman sanctuary campus - be kind and share!
UK's Daily Mail published article that discusses global warming collapse, based on latest empirical evidence being reported by the Met Office Hadley Centre.....the global temperatures have dropped hugely since the 2015-2016 El Nino peak...
The global temperature chart image on the left is from the Daily Mail.
The recent substantial drop in world temperatures is evident. Clearly, the temperature spike caused by the recent El Nino is in the process of being reversed, and quickly with some gusto.
The image on the right represents a plot multiple global per century temperature trends based on the same UK global anomaly dataset used by the Daily Mail to plot absolute temps. The blue 1-year (12-month) trends show the dramatic global warming trend reversal over the most recent months - from a peak in March 2016 to what now amounts to being a significant cooling trend by October 2016.
The other plotted trends for longer periods will eventually follow the direction of the 1-year trend as the slide of future global temperatures from the peak continues.
A note of interest is the fact that none of the different period warming trends plotted exceeded those reached in the past during periods of lower atmospheric CO2. Despite this incredibly powerful El Nino taking place during modern history's period of the highest CO2 levels recorded, the 2015/16 warming trends generated never surpassed those experienced in the past.
Prior global temperature charts.
The 2016 Trump election landslide and Republican down ticket success indicate a strong possibility of a return to common sense and honesty in climate science, as well as a massive voter rejection of Democrats’ climate fear-mongering ... catastrophic global warming skeptics should rejoice......
The popular mandate that Obama and Democrats assumed they had from the American public has been shattered, with a top-to-bottom landslide of the GOP 2016 election victories.
This election, and the cumulative effect of prior ones, has decimated the once major party across the country. They have been reduced to finger-pointing recriminations and internal threats to Democrat cohesion.
They no longer have a supposed mandate, let alone majority voter support, for any of their U.S. national policies, including the recent unilateral climate change regulations and associated anti-growth policies issued/authorized by Democrat politicians.
The 2016 election numbers speak for themselves regarding the decimated state of Democrats and the resurgent GOP:
Based on all the above datapoints, combined with the election map's visual representation, Trump and the GOP totally destroyed any mandate and power base that Democrats once possessed, besides laying waste to Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations.
The 2016 election outcome significantly reduced the impact of Democrat office holders across the entire country, but with a single exception - the Democrat one-party rule in U.S. major urban centers.
Election results from 2016 do show that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats continue their decades-long dominance (and mismanagement) of the modern urban-plantation areas. These metro geographic area characteristics include: high levels of poverty, huge young person unemployment, significant welfare dependence, massive violent crime outcomes, substantial illegal immigrant populations, and just plain, awful, lousy education performance.
Clinton won 90%4 of this metro constituency (note: these voters really don't care about climate change or honest science - understandably, they just want to simply survive their concrete hellholes on a day-to-day basis).
In contrast to Clinton's urban strongholds, Trump won the entire country with 306 electoral votes9, which clearly indicates his geographical diversity and dominance.
Looked at another way, on Nov. 8, 2016, there were 51 popular elections held (the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia); and Trump won 319 of those popular elections.
Going even more granular, each county in the country held a popular-vote presidential election and Trump won 2,633* of those county elections, while Clinton only won 487* counties.
Unequivocally, there exists an overwhelming and diversified geographic domination by Trump and the GOP - it represents a solid, country-wide mandate.
And all of the above represents a clear refutation of the post-election urban millennial temper tantrums that have produced dangerous, destructive riots plaguing the remaining one-party strongholds of Democrats. In addition, the country-wide success of the GOP and Trump on election day is also clear refutation of Hollywood's and Silicon Valley's wealthy safe-space temper tantrums.
Finally, the left/liberals who thought Hillary Clinton would win in a "landslide" were demanding that Republicans and Trump voters support country unity with the inevitable Hillary win. Yet with roles now reversed, the Democrats choose to promote country disunity by their attempts to reverse the substantial Trump electoral and geographic election wins.
While the Democrat progressive post-election meltdown continues over their massive election loss, GOP leadership needs to immediately focus their own re-energized strength on quickly reversing the economic/business damage that the UN, Obama and the EPA imposed in the name of global warming and climate change.
And with the backing of a strong voter mandate, Republican leaders should absolutely ignore any and all pleas of their Democrat counterparts for climate/energy policy compromise - ahem.....let's hope the stupid party does not fall for that scam again.
Paraphrasing the great words of the legacy-less Obama - "we won," now shut up and enjoy our fossil fuel independence, security and economic growth.
*USA Today and Wikipedia were used in combination to ascertain how many total U.S. counties (including parishes, and counting Alaska as a single county since it is not divided into the familiar county structure). For example, here are the respective links (USA Today and Wikipedia) used for Alabama counties - each state has its own link within these two web publications that list their counties info.
Note: Long-term modest global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age ending; climate change has been a constant since the beginning of Earth's climate(s) and will continue to take place regardless of human activities.