Researchers analyzing data for extreme climate change risk continue to discover evidence that the predicted results are not happening - lack of extreme rainfall in the Himalayas is most recent example
Read here. The "scientists" associated with the UN's IPCC had predicted severe weather events would increase both in frequency and intensity due to global warming. Unique areas of the world, such as the Himalayas, were considered to be especially vulnerable to these events.
To assess the extreme climate change risk that the Himalayas faced, researchers set out to document the severe rainfall events that were long predicted.
"Nandargi and Dhar decided to present "a brief review of the available information and data for extreme rainfall events that were experienced in different sectors of the Himalayas during the last 137 years" in an attempt to determine "the impact of climate change on the extreme one-day rainfall of the Himalayan region, in the context of rising temperatures."...Working with data obtained from 475 measurement stations...said that there is an increase in the frequencies of extreme rainfall events from the 1951-1960 decade onwards," but only until "there was a sudden decrease in the frequency of extreme rainfall events in all the four categories in the recent period of 2001-2007...concluding words of the two scientists, "it is somewhat baffling as to whether climate change has any impact on extreme rainfall events in the entire Himalayan region..." [S. Nandargia, O. N. Dhara 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Conclusion: The extreme climate change risk promulgated by the big global insurance companies and their scientific minions has proven to be without merit when the actual empirical evidence is closely scrutinized.
Without any empirical evidence, the mainstream media continues to report that global warming is causing an increase of severe weather events - latest scientific analysis of tornadoes disproves IPCC alarmist claims to be meritless
Read here. The IPCC continues to push the bogus claim that "global warming" (supposedly due to human CO2) is (and will) causing more severe weather events with the publication of their new 'SREX' report.
The incredibly stupid and lazy journalists covering climate science dutifully report the desired summary propaganda that the IPCC wants heard. Yet if they made any effort, the reporters would soon discover that the empirical evidence does not support the the IPCC hypothesis that past warming has caused more severe weather.
The adjacent violent tornado chart is a clear cut example that alarmist claims of more severe weather due to warming is indeed not factual.
In addition, climate science journalists are soooo lazy, and obviously enraptured (cult-like?) with misleading the public about climate disasters, they always seem to miss the IPCC's fine print, such as this in the new 'SREX' report:
“While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to the question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme.”...“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”...“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados.”...“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.”
Conclusions: First, severe weather events have not increased as a result of global warming - in fact, even the IPCC admits there is no increasing trend of said events. Second, climate science reporters and the mainstream media continue to mislead and misinform the public and policymakers with bogus reports of 'cherry-picked' extreme weather events, both current and predicted.
Read here. It has become a common practice among those advocating government control of CO2 emissions and higher energy prices that all modern extreme weather events are a result of global warming. These claims have taken on the characteristics of urban myths believed by those who have high disdain for empirical evidence.
Although there is ample scientific evidence that global warming has been non-existent over the past 10 years and that extreme weather events happened with alarming frequency prior to the modern era, a new peer reviewed study out of China shatters the urban legend that global warming causes more frequent and larger snowstorms.
Research on extreme weather events:
After the $21 billion snowstorm disaster experienced in China during 2008, Chinese researchers (Hou et al.) closely examined 500 years of historical data to determine how unique this gargantuan snowstorm was.
"From 10 January to 2 February 2008..."continuous heavy snowfall occurred over Central and Southern China...causing "1.7 million people to be displaced for periods ranging between a few days to a month," and affecting "critical infrastructure including electric power grids and communication systems," while "food production, forests, wildlife and buildings all suffered heavy damage..."...the four researchers "used weather records contained in Chinese historical documents from the past 500 years to search for ESEs [extreme snow events] that were comparable in severity,...they identified 25 additional ESEs that were "comparable to the extreme snow event in 2008 in terms of snowfall days, snow cover/icing days and snow depth," and a graph of their data indicates that all of the additional ESEs occurred during periods that were colder than the past decade...noting that their results reveal, as they describe it, "what we have learned from the past," which is that this particular extreme has become much less common than it was in colder times." [Zhixin Hao, Jingyun Zheng, Quansheng Ge, Wei-Chyung Wang 2011: Climate Research]
Conclusion: The green warmists that dominate the ranks of leftists / progressives / liberals / Democrats almost completely rely on promulgating urban myths regarding climate change, global warming and extreme weather events. Fortunately for the rest of the world, the preponderance of empirical evidence and peer reviewed research does not support the myths and legends.
For the global warming alarmist community, the inconvenient facts about droughts is that previous climate change produced more severe and longer lasting droughts
Read here. The historical evidence strongly supports that the severe climatic conditions of the Little Ice Age (pre-1850) produced extreme droughts that often affected Georgia and other locations of the Southeast U.S.
A new study of the U.S. Southeast confirms the known facts about droughts. Pederson et al. found that droughts during the end of the Little Ice Age were more severe and of longer duration than those of the 20th and 21st centuries. In essence, previous climate change, especially during cooler periods, produced more extreme climatic conditions in many parts of the world.
"A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters uses tree-ring proxies to reconstruct drought conditions of the American Southeast from 1665 to 2010. The authors find "The reconstruction shows that the recent droughts are not unprecedented over the last 346 years. Indeed, droughts of extended duration occurred more frequently between 1696 and 1820. Our results indicate that the era in which local and state water supply decisions were developed and the period of instrumental data upon which it is based are amongst the wettest since at least 1665." [N. Pederson, A. R. Bell, T. A. Knight, C. Leland, N. Malcomb, K. J. Anchukaitis, K. Tackett, J. Scheff, A. Brice, B. Catron, W. Blozan, J. Riddle 2012: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The empirical, inconvenient facts about droughts is that they have been found to be more frequent and more severe during cooler climate change regimes.
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example
Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.
Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":
"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."
And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.
"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?
The professional green CAGW alarmists predicted that global warming would bring climate change to Sierra Mtns. in the form of decreased snowfall levels - empirical evidence proves prediction to be without merit
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Another 'Big Green' climate change prediction. Another climate change prediction fail.
As the adjacent chart shows, the snowfall trend for the California Sierra region has not been impacted by human CO2 emissions or the modern global warming since the late 1800's.
"The analysis of snowfall data from as far back as 1878 found no long-term trend in how much snow falls in the state, especially in the critical western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains...There isn’t a trend significantly different from zero for the whole period,...just the past 50 years and there is no trend over this recent stretch either."..."Monthly snowfall totals from over 500 stations in California, some of which date back to 1878, are examined. Most data were accessed through the NOAA archive...For those regions characterized by consistent monitoring and with the most robust statistical reproducibility, we find no statistically significant trends in their periods-of-record (up to 133 years) nor in the most recent 50 years. This result encompasses the main snowfall region of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains." [John R. Christy 2012: Journal of Hydrometeorology]
The IPCC & Climategate scientist Kenneth Trenberth long predicted that anthropogenic global warming would increase tropical cyclone landfalls - their prediction was wrong
Read here. The AGW alarmist scientists of the IPCC (including the world's most incompetent climate scientist) have for many years predicted that CO2-induced global warming would cause a severe increase in tropical cyclone frequency and strength. These ferocious storms would thus result in wreaking havoc on coastal areas worldwide, unless human CO2 emission growth was stopped - per the IPCC.
As with almost every single climate change catastrophic prediction that the IPCC has fantasized about, empirical research proves the increased cyclone / hurricane landfall prediction to be meritless. The actual scientific evidence is both unequivocal and irrefutable: the modern global warming has not produced a greater number of destructive tropical cyclones making landfall. (click on above peer reviewed chart to enlarge - evidence of failed prediction)
"Using currently available historical TC best-track records, we have constructed a global database focused on hurricane-force strength landfalls. Our analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. This evidence provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls..." [Jessica Weinkle, Ryan Maue and Roger Pielke, Jr. 2012: Journal of Climate]
As the majority of empirical-based scientists are now discovering, the IPCC's global warming catastrophic predictions have been terribly wrong - the failed prediction of an increase of severe windstorms is newest example
Read here. The IPCC, its climate models and its Climategate scientists have become infamous for flat-out, dreadful, incorrect climate predictions. A prominent prediction of an increase in severe weather due to global warming (ie, climate change) was made long ago, yet all the empirical research keeps confirming the lack of an increase. (click on image for more info)
The latest research on severe windstorms in the U.S. is another example of the incompetence of the IPCC's climate models and its "consensus experts."
"The author notes that high winds - excluding those associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, blizzards and heavy rainstorms - are one of the United States' leading types of damage-producing storms. These straight-line windstorms, as they are called, produce annual U.S. property and crop losses...Changnon describes how a number of adjustments to loss data of the past needed to be made "to calculate a revised monetary loss value for each catastrophe so as to make it comparable to current year values, 2006 in this study." And when these adjustments were made, he reports that the 55-year time trend "was not up or down."...study's finding that "the national temporal distribution of catastrophic windstorms during 1952-2006 has a flat trend,"..." [Stanley Changnon, 2011: Natural Hazards]
Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC climate "scientist", is widely known for both his aggressive smearing of his science critics and his dog-awful climate predictions.
Like a beggar-person addicted to alcohol, Trenberth seems to say and predict any CAGW outcomes to assure a continual flow of government research monies, including the prediction that global warming will cause frequent extreme precipitation events. Like many of his global warming climate predictions, he was wrong.
Climate researchers Dravitzki and McGregor analyzed precipitation events for the northern region of New Zealand and could find no evidence of what-in-the-hell Trenberth was talking about - another major prediction fail per the peer reviewed empirical data.
"Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region...developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values..."since 1900 there have been no significant variations in the total annual precipitation nor in the occurrence or magnitude of extreme precipitation events," and they say that these events "...write that "the consistency of the precipitation totals suggests that the current economically important water supply is secure within the region." And we would add that their finding of no evidence for the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC over a 107-year period -- when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that were unprecedented over the past millennium or more - suggests that the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC are not what they are cracked up to be..." [Stacey Dravitzki, James McGregor 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
Often climate models are utilized for specific regional climate forecasts - scientists determine that for regional snowfalls, the models are worthless
Read here. It is well established that climate models have been atrocious at predicting global warming and other climate attributes. This lack of predictive skill globally is compounded when these models attempt to make regional predictions such as snowfall in a specific region.
EU scientists, Soncini and Bocchiola, analyzed snowfall predictions by two major climate models for the Italian Alps region. The models did not perform as advertised.
"The authors write that "General Circulation Models (GCMs) are widely adopted tools to achieve future climate projections." They note, however, that "one needs to assess their accuracy, which is only possible by comparison of GCMs' control runs against past observed data,"...investigated the accuracy of simulations of snowfall throughout the Italian Alps that were provided by two GCMs...included within the family of models employed by the IPCC. This was done by comparing the models' output with a set of comprehensive ground data obtained from some 400 snow-gauging stations located within the region of interest for the period 1990-2009...determined that "the investigated GCMs provide poor depiction of the snowfall timing and amount upon the Italian Alps," noting, in fact, that the HadCM3 model actually "displays considerable snowfall during summer," which they indicate "is clearly not supported by ground data"..."given the poor depiction of snowfall by the GCMs here tested, we suggest that care should be taken when using their outputs for predictive purposes."" [A. Soncini, D. Bocchiola 2011: Cold Regions Science and Technology]
The IPCC and other global warming alarmists predicted that the frequency of extreme hurricanes would increase because of CO2-induced global warming. At least that's what their theory told them.
Recently, climate researchers analyzed a large Florida sinkhole that had hurricane evidence going back some 4,500 years. This new empirical evidence now establishes that super hurricane frequency was much greater thousands of years ago, and that the modern era has experienced far fewer of these monster storms despite human CO2 and warming.
"Lane et al. developed a 4500-year record of intense hurricane-induced storm surges based on data obtained from "a nearly circular, 200-m-diameter cover-collapse sinkhole...reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these "high-magnitude" events "peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago." Thereafter, it suggests that they were "relatively rare" with "about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago," after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which "began around 600 years ago" and has persisted through the present with "below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia."" [Philip Lane, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Jonathan D. Woodruff, Andrea D. Hawkes 2011: Marine Geology]
As this updated climate map reveals, the severe drought condition for Australia during 2011 was essentially non-existent. The IPCC-based climate science predicted more frequent and intense droughts, which has not been the case.
Due to the incredibly bad reporting by the mainstream press, many Americans believe the U.S. suffers from "accelerated warming" and increasing severe weather - neither are true
First, as the adjacent chart reveals, U.S. temperatures are not "accelerating." The red curve is the 12-month moving average (since 1895), which clearly shows no acceleration, and shows zero relationship to the growing levels of atmospheric CO2 levels (black dots).
As can be seen, U.S. monthly temperatures have a wide variation (the blue up/down plot) in any given year, fluctuating between low and high extremes.
Again, no "accelerating" warming trend is evident from the actual temperature empirical evidence. (click on charts to enlarge)
Read here. This second chart plots the total number of severe tornadoes (F2, F3, F4 & F5) in decade groups (the 2000's include 2011). This actual empirical evidence substantiates that severe weather events, as represented by extreme tornadoes, are not increasing in the U.S.
Conclusion: The mainstream press (eg., NYT, WaPo, Time, CBS, NBC, LA Times, etc.) willfully and unequivocally reports misinformation regarding severe weather and global warming. They do so to purposefully mislead the public and policymakers regarding global warming and climate change.
The UN's Climategate scientists and bureaucrats continue pushing the "severe weather" lies at Durban IPCC climate conference
Since time immemorial, humans have been talking about how bad the weather has been over the 'past year' or over the 'past growing season.' This uniquely human trait is often exhibited throughout the ancient text of the Bible. Yet the corrupt United Nations and its Climategate perpetrators continue to claim that recent bad weather is actually only due to "global warming" and human CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately for the UN 'liars of Durban,' the world's previous severe weather incidents includes a gigantic list of bad weather events happening well before dangerous CO2 levels.
In addition, the immense preponderance of modern climate peer-reviewed studies can find no connection between human CO2 emissions and modern severe weather.
And now, adding further empirical evidence misery to the UN's Climategate liars' claims, comes this startling factoid: severe hurricane landfalls in the U.S. have plummeted over the last 6 years!
Combine these type of actual facts with the recent extreme weather science report that is being suppressed at Durban ("Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"), and it is no wonder that public and policymaker support for global warming and climate change policies has crumbled over the last few years - bureaucracy lies and science corruption usually have that sort of outcome, thankfully.
The absurdity of "consensus" climate change science and global warming alarmism on display, again
Read here. As the 2011 hurricane season comes to a close, there has yet to be a direct major hurricane strike on the U.S. since 2005 (note: Hurricane Irene in 2011 became Tropical Storm Irene before striking the continental U.S.).
The anti-science left/liberal/progressives and the IPCC Climategate alarmists have long predicted that CO2-induced global warming will cause more frequent and more severe hurricane strikes on America's Atlantic coast. These AGW hurricanes would then cause massive economic damage and carnage resulting in climate refugees fleeing the coast.
In a nutshell, this is the pathetic and hysterical climate "science" that the left embraces and promulgates, without any supporting empirical evidence (image source), or now, even a credible theory.
A team of NOAA researchers has recently completed a new analysis and have now conceived a new "consensus" science: global warming will cause less storms to strike the U.S.
Wang et al. analyzed the Atlantic Warming Pool (AWP) history and determined that when it was warmer and larger, the AWP birthed hurricanes that were farther from U.S. shores and less likely to strike the Atlantic coasts. Ergo, global warming may indeed cause larger storms but they would dissipate over open waters before reaching U.S.
"For this investigation, Wang and colleagues divided the observed history of Atlantic tropical cyclones (since 1970) into years with large AWPs and those with small AWPs and then tallied up within each division storm characteristics such as number and tracking tendency. What they found was that large AWPs were associated with more storms, but—and this is important—storms which preferentially stayed off-shore and did not make landfall along the U.S. coast. In other words, the hurricanes which formed became less menacing...as the AWP increased in size it made conditions more favorable for tropical cyclone formation and growth further out in the Atlantic Ocean. And at the same time, it altered the atmospheric circulation patterns over the central Atlantic Ocean such that the storms which did form were steered more northward into the open Atlantic and away from the U.S. mainland." [Chunzai Wang, Hailong Liu, Sang-Ki Lee, Robert Atlas 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent IPCC "expert" deeply involved in the Climategate scandal, has long promulgated the IPCC prediction that CO2-induced global warming will cause an increase in tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Trenberth even doubles-down by stating that all modern severe weather events are the result of "unequivocal" global warming. Unfortunately for Trenberth and the IPCC, the overwhelming, unequivocally growing evidence documents well that cyclones/hurricanes have not increased as predicted.
First, as all know to be the case (click on adjacent image to enlarge), Trenberth is truth-challenged in public regarding the supposed "unequivocal" global warming claim (he sings a mightily different tune in private conversations). As the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT empirical evidence shows, accelerated global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years.
This evidence is irrefutable, yet Trenberth continues to claim global warming is "unequivocal" despite other climate alarmists giving up the ghost of AGW and are now producing research trying to explain the disappearance of global warming. (One would guess that this disturbing and consistent lack of stating the fundamental climate truth by Trenberth has to be a pathological disorder of some kind.)
Now in addition to the amazing disregard of actual global temperatures, a new study by Ying et al. determines that the empirical evidence proves that the China region has not experienced an increase of tropical cyclones over the last 50 years, which corroborates the vast majority of studies on this subject, globally. Thus, Ternberth's beliefs and predictions are again eviscerated by the cruel empirical scientific process - and the same holds true for the IPCC as well.
"The authors write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) has twice suggested that "precipitation and extreme winds associated with tropical cyclones may have become more intense." However, they note that this dual claim is "mainly based on numerical models,"...Working with tropical cyclone (TC) best track and related observational severe wind and precipitation datasets created by the Shanghai Typhoon Institute of the China Meteorological Administration...report that over the past half-century there have been no changes in the frequency of TC occurrence...they say that "during the past 50 years, there have been no significant trends in the days of TC...that "the seasonal rhythm of the TC influence on China also has not changed."...found that "the maximum sustained winds of TCs affecting the whole of China and all sub-regions have decreasing trends."...state that "the trends of extreme storm precipitation and 1-hour precipitation were all insignificant."" [Ming Ying, YuHua Yang, BaoDe Chen, Wei Zhang 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Read here. The Climategate scientists of the IPCC predicted that modern global warming would cause an increase of severe floods, as did the IPCC climate models. But when the science is objectively analyzed and the empirical evidence crunched, this prediction fails as so many before it.
Researchers Hirsch and Ryberg examine the U.S. evidence from a period of 85 to 127 years and conclude there is no significant relationship between the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (that causes modern AGW) and annual floods.
"...shows that flooding has not increased in the United States over records of 85 to 127 years. This adds to a pile of research that shows similar results around the world. This result is of course consistent with our work that shows that increasing damage related to weather extremes can be entirely explained by societal changes, such as more property in harm's way. In fact, in the US flood damage has decreased dramatically as a fraction of GDP, which is exactly whet you get if GDP goes up and flooding does not." [R. M. Hirsch, K. R. Ryberg 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Read here. The climate alarmism bozos/bimbos brigade (Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Jeff Masters and etc.) has claimed that past severe winter conditions were the result of CO2-induced global warming. They did so without a sliver of scientific proof nor empirical evidence.
As the general public deduced, the brigade's claim that extreme winter conditions are being caused by "global warming" is a complete crock. And to the major chagrin of the likes of Kevin Trenberth, the climate modelers are now pointing their collective fingers at the real culprit - the sun. Losing the public and climate/solar science debate both - Ouch!
The team of Ineson et al. determined that a strong solar signal (positive or negative) will cause significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO change produces affects on the winter circulation patterns resulting in a dearth or abundance of Northern Hemisphere severe winter storms. Using climate models, they established a firm relationship between solar maximum/minimum and the change in the NAO.
"A research team...primarily made up of scientists from the U.K.’s Hadley Centre Met Office have identified a fairly strong solar signal in Northern Hemisphere winter circulation patterns which are manifest over Europe and the eastern United States. According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11-yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America...When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems. For instance, during the “snowmageddon” winter of 2009/2010, the NAO was at a near record low value..."Given our modelling result, these cold winters were probably exacerbated by the recent prolonged and anomalously low solar minimum. On decadal timescales the increase in the NAO from the 1960s to 1990s…may also be partly explained by the upwards trend in solar activity evident in the open solar-flux record…."" [Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray, Joanna D. Haigh 2011: Nature Geoscience]
Read here. The climate predictions of the IPCC, its climate models and "experts," such as Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye and Jeff Masters have been robustly abysmal. As the world struggles with unprecedented and severe financial and economic disasters, the shrill, self-centered, non-scientific incompetence of climate science alarmism continues to be shouted by egotistical personalities regardless of the scientific evidence.
These deniers/liars of past extreme climate change are the same ones whom have long predicted that human CO2-induced global warming would cause more severe tropical cyclones and hurricanes. Fortunately for the rest of us, these deniers/liars have been spectacularly wrong, as the latest peer-reviewed study makes clear.
Researchers used a new updated database of cyclone activity for the Australian region and determined that eastern Australia has experienced a 62% decline in severe cyclone strikes since the 1870's. All alarmists and IPCC computer predicted the opposite.
"The authors note that several studies have raised concerns that tropical cyclones, or TCs -- and especially the severe ones -- "have become more frequent in many places in response to global warming," citing Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005). In addition, Callaghan and Power write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, highlights several studies that conclude that "tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense in the future in response to global warming," citing Alley et al. (2007)...developed and used "a new data base of severe land-falling TCs for eastern Australia derived from numerous historical sources, that has taken over a decade to develop."...new data base allows them "to document changes over much longer periods than has been done previously for the Southern Hemisphere,"...they report that "the sign and magnitude of trends calculated over 30 years periods vary substantially," highlighting the fact that "caution needs to be taken in making inferences based on e.g. satellite era data only." And second, they report that "the linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TC/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TC/year in recent times -- a 62% decline."" [Jeff Callaghan, Scott B. Power 2011: Climate Dynamics]
Read here. Fanatical global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore, have aggressively publicized extreme green/left/liberal catastrophic scenarios over the past decade. These predicted catastrophic scenarios are then widely disseminated, and popularized, by the mainstream media and Hollywood in an attempt to bias both policymakers and the public.
Unfortunately for the likes of Al Gore and the MSM, the predicted catastrophic scenarios, such as an increased frequency of severe hurricanes and cyclones, keep proving to be nothing more than wild, exaggerated speculation.
A comprehensive review of the world's best, recently published peer reviewed research, by scientist Jonathon Nott, determined the Al Gore/IPCC's Climategate science speculation that global warming would cause an increase of catastrophic hurricanes and cyclones is not supported by any empirical evidence. Ergo, the green alarmist prediction of increased CO2 emissions causing more hurricanes from global warming is baseless.
"...the Australian researcher reports that "recent analyses of corrected historical TC records suggest that there are no definitive trends towards an increase in the frequency of high-intensity TCs for the Atlantic Ocean region (Knutson et al., 2010), the northwest Pacific (Chan, 2006; Kossin et al., 2007) and the Australian region, South Pacific and south Indian oceans (Kuleshov et al., 2010)." He notes, however, that "over multi-century to millennial timescales, substantial change has occurred in virtually all TC-generating regions of the globe," with "alternating periods of lesser and greater activity," writing that "the longer, coarser-resolution records display periods from multi-century to over a millennium in length, whereas the higher-resolution records register multi-decadal to centennial-length periodicities." In some of these cases, Nott says that (1) "different climate states, such as periods dominated by El Niños and La Niñas, appear to be responsible for the TC variability." In other cases, he says the responsible factor seems to be (2) shifts in the position of the jet stream, (3) solar variability, or (4) some unknown cause." [Jonathon Nott 2011: Journal ofQuaternary Science]
Read here. After last week's spectacularly lame, 24-hour Gore "climate reality" circus, now comes new research that just mocks the hysterical Gore-science spewed out last week.
The IPCC climate models, and Nobel 'Gore-science,' contend that severe weather has increased because of CO2-induced global warming. Li et al. chose to investigate this prediction and researched severe weather events for the Perth, Australia region. They discovered no trend in severe weather frequency, which contradicts the IPCC/Gore prediction.
"Citing "unprecedented public concern" with respect to the impacts of climate change, Li et al. (2011) set out to examine the variability and trends of storminess for the region of the Perth metropolitan coast of Australia. To do so, they conducted an extensive set of analyses using observations of wave, wind, air pressure, and water level over the period 1994-2008. The results of their analysis, in their view, should serve "to validate or invalidate the climate change hypothesis" that rising CO2 concentrations are increasing the frequency and severity of storms...all storm indices showed significant interannual variability over the period of record, but "no evidence of increasing (decreasing) trends in extreme storm power was identified to validate the wave climate change hypotheses for the Perth region." [Fangjun Li, Lucya Roncevich, Charlie Bicknell, Reena Lowry, and Karl Ilich 2011: Journal of Coastal Research]
The IPCC, and publicity oriented propaganda-scientists, such as Al Gore and Kevin Trenberth, should be muzzled by the scientific community as they both continue to do significant and robust damage to the reputation and credibility of science in general.
The Al Gore climate propaganda machine will be in full swing for 24 hours starting September 14. His objective is to convince people that recent severe weather events are a result of global warming and climate change, supposedly caused by human CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately for Al Gore and his warming fundamentalist followers, severe weather events happen regardless of human CO2. The extreme weather events of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s provide ample evidence that the higher levels of 2011 atmospheric CO2 are irrelevant.
Below is a list of severe weather incidents (and other items of interest) that took place during the 50s, 60s and 70s. These terrible and destructive events occurred well before the current decade's hysteria about CO2 emissions. These events represent empirical evidence (reality) that refutes Al Gore's type of climate science.
The expanded severe weather list can be found here.
Read here. The IPCC Climategate "scientists" and the likes of Al Gore have long predicted that cyclone activity (hurricanes, tropical storms, etc.) would increase in frequency from global warming. This highly acclaimed prediction has been a spectacular failure and embarrassment to alarmists though, as the latest research reveals.
Dr. Ryan Maue's peer reviewed study confirms what objective scientists have been stating: recent cyclonic activity is at its lowest level, not its highest, in spite of CO2-induced warming.
"The U.S. researcher reports that "in the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s," and he also finds that "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low." Some details of note include the fact that "a total of 69 TCs were counted during calendar year 2010, the fewest observed in the past 40 years with reliable frequency data," as well as the fact that over that same four-decade period, "12-month running-sums of the number of global TCs of at least tropical storm force has averaged 87," while "the minimum number of 64 TCs was recently tallied through May 2011."...""there is no significant linear trend in the frequency of global TCs," in agreement with the analysis of Wang et al. (2010), plus the fact that the earth is experiencing "this current period of record inactivity,"" [Ryan N. Maue 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
That great climate "scientist," whose political hack and anti-science behavior is widely condoned by the scientific "elite" establishment, is at it again. Kevin Trenberth has forced the editor of a science journal not only to resign his position, but to personally write Trenberth a humiliating apology note. Why?
Read here and here. Trenberth, and his IPCC Climategate comrades, did not like the fact that said editor allowed an article to be published in the Remote Sensing journal without his approval.
Of course, we've written about Trenberth before, not in the kindest terms. To our way of thinking, he is the epitome of a political hack scientist performing mediocre science, using his position of power to destroy reputations and lives of those who challenge his scientific opinions - hey, his most recent actions are living proof of that and are robustly indisputable.
Read here. To be fair, in terms of CO2-climate science how good is Trenberth? Does the benefit of his CO2-climate science skill/capabilities outweigh the costs of his poisonous, unprofessional and ugly behavior in the realm of science?
Well, he's the one, long on record, saying additional CO2 emissions would increase the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. And, as with almost all his climate predictions and speculation, Trenberth has been wrong (as shown in the below charts - click on images to enlarge). Ergo, his climate science skill is at best mediocre.
All images from JoNova site. Arrows added by 'C3'.As clearly shown, the increase of CO2 emissions has not caused Trenberth's predicted increase in severe weather frequency and intensity.
Trenberth even confirmed the bogosity of his brand of IPCC "climate science" with his infamous "travesty" comment in the Climategate emails regarding the lack of global warming. His mediocrity as a climate scientist is readily apparent, from even his own lips.
Speaking of resignations, reflecting back on the last few years, is it time for Trenberth to resign his American taxpayer funded position because of his personal vendettas against those he disagrees with? Is it time for Trenberth to resign because of the irreparable harm he is doing to the general science community's reputation with his bizarre, ego-driven behavior?
Is it finally time for Trenberth to apologize to the American taxpayer for being such an incompetent climate scientist? (In all honesty, a freaking Ouija board would produce better results than Trenberth et al., without a hint of the viciousness and ugliness.)
Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists predicted that global warming would increase the frequency and intensity of stormy weather. They based these predictions on their "expert" climate models. The prediction fails the empirical test as real world evidence confirms that storminess has not increased.
Esteves et al. studied long term datasets of weather data for the Irish Sea region going back to 1894. Their peer reviewed research found no change for storminess.
"Focusing on a well-studied and data-rich 16-km-long section of the Sefton coastline of northwest England, as they describe it, Esteves et al. used the longest available measured datasets from the eastern Irish Sea and beyond -- including tide levels, surge heights, wind speeds and wave heights -- in a search for evidence of long-term changes...say their results "show no evidence of enhanced storminess or increases in surge heights or extreme water levels," and that "the evolution of the coastline analyzed at various temporal scales shows no strong connection with metocean trends."...the available metocean data "do not indicate any statistically significant changes outside seasonal and decadal cycles."" [L. S. Esteves, J. J. Williams, J. M. Brown 2011: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences]
Read here. Hurricane scientist expert (PhD) Ryan Maue takes two climate alarmists to task for their non-scientific ramblings information regarding Hurricane Irene. Bill McKibben is your typical green leftist crackpot eccentric who is now blaming both a pipeline and President Obama for the hurricane, along with, of course, global warming.
The good news for Obama is that McKibben, the nutjob eccentric, can't blame him for past significant hurricanes that struck NYC during these years:
September 23, 1875
August 19, 1788
October 9, 1804
September 16, 1816
September 3, 1821
October 13, 1846
October 6, 1849
October 28, 1872
Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with a bent to blaming every weather event on global warming, chose to make some extreme claims about hot ocean temperatures that are...er....well, bizarre for someone with a science background.
"Masters is quoted that “bizarrely high” SSTs along Irene’s path will cause Irene to be a much wetter and apparently longer-lasting hurricane that normal. This assertion is true if “all else is equal”. However, before attributing the “anomalous SST” to global warming, one must control all other variables in this complex situation. That requires considerable sensitivity research with state-of-the art numerical weather prediction (and climate) models...This hand-waving theory may not hold up when a rigorous scientific hypothesis is tested, yet McKibben does not provide a citation or reference aside from Masters’ quotations, which are not peer-reviewed in the slightest."
And of course, there is then the whole issue of "global warming" being the cause, which Masters and McKibben then conveniently ignore the actual global temperature record for the last 15 years. Looking at the real global temperatures shown in this chart, it begs the question of these two hacks exceptional human beings, "what global warming?".
Read here. The UN's IPCC and associated climate alarmist scientists predicted that severe weather would increase globally as a result of human-caused global warming. Three new peer reviewed studies, representing the large expanse of the Australia-Asia region, determined that cyclone and tropical storm occurrence has actually declined over modern era, post WWII.
Simple summary: The IPCC, its climate "experts" and their predictions were wrong, again.
"These three studies provide even more evidence (as if any more is even required) that shows that claims that hurricane activity is increasing are completely at odds with a plethora of findings reporting on observations collected from throughout the world."
Read here. (h/t Greenie Watch) The Mediterranean Sea basin is considered one ot the more vulnerable to climate change, which is a major concern since the IPCC climate models predict that global warming will result in more frequent storm activity. To test this prediction, EU researchers analyzed 7,000 years of data from sediment cores from southern France's coastal region.
Sabatier et al. analysis establishes the history of severe storm activity, which firmly indicates that severe stroms were more frequent during global cooling (ie. The Little Ice Age) than during global warming spans, such as the Medieval Warming Period.
As is often the case, the empirical evidence refutes the IPCC climate model predictions.
"This paper present a high resolution record of paleostorm events in the French Mediterrannean coast over the past 7000 years based on a long sediment core from lagoonal environment in Gulf of Lions...we have recorded seven periods of increase in storm activity at 6200, 5400, 4600-4200, 3600-3100, 2600, 1900-1500 yr cal B.P. and over the Little Ice Age...Whereas the Medieval Warm Period (1200-700 yr cal B.P.) is characterized by a low storm activity. These evidences of changes in coastal hydrodynamic are in phase with those observed over the North Atlantic and correspond to Holocene cooling evidenced associated to decreases of SST in the North Atlantic." [Pierre Sabatier, Laurent Dezileau, Christophe Colin, Louis Briqueu, Philippe Martinez, Giuseppe Siani, Frédérique Bouchette, Olivier Raynal, Ulrich Von Grafenstein 2011: International Union for Quaternary Research]
Read here. Droughts are a frequent visitor to the southwest U.S. and Mexico regions. The current drought that this area is experiencing is bad but in no way is it as extreme as the droughts that took place during the Medieval era.
As the chart reveals, both the Medieval and modern periods share a characteristic of high incoming solar irradiance. With the increase of incoming solar energy, the result is time spans of frequent and more intense droughts. These more extreme droughts occur naturally and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, including CO2 emissions.
There are some scientists who predict we are entering a stage where 60-year droughts, like those during the Medieval Period, could occur but no one knows for sure. If solar irradiance falls (as it seems to be doing most recently), the modern drought cycle may end.
Woodhouse et al. published this 1,200 year perspective of Southwestern North America droughts:
"The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought in western North America. Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison... Spatially, the mid-12th century drought covers all of the western U.S. and northern Mexico...whereas the 21st century drought has not impacted parts of the Pacific Northwest...The 21st century drought has lasted about a decade so far, whereas the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity...for two decades, 1140–1159 [AD]...In both instrumental and paleoclimatic records, periods of sustained drought in the Southwest have often been concurrent with elevated temperatures. The warmest such episode, in the mid-12th century, was more extensive and much more persistent than any modern drought experienced to date..." [Connie A. Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Glen M. MacDonald, Dave W. Stahle, Edward R. Cooke 2009: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. (h/t Steve Milloy) It seems there is a catastrophic drought in the Somalia and Ethiopia region of east Africa every decade. In 2011, there again is much drought-caused suffering. The typical climatealarmist (and mainstream media) is quick to blame "global warming" for these weather disasters, but empirical-based, objective researchers think otherwise.
A new study by Wolf et al. determines that El Niño dominates the climate patterns in the east African region, bringing alternating periods of flood and drought. This cycle has been happening for thousands of years before any modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, and the natural ENSO pattern will continue to do so.
"Floods and droughts in East Africa are often unleashed by far-away events in the tropical Pacific—the warm (El Niño) or cool (La Niña) phases of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)...waxing and waning of rainfall in eastern tropical Africa in unison with ENSO is nothing unusual and existed already 20,000 years ago, according to a study...Scientists have attributed the severe drying to La Niña conditions that prevailed from June 2010 to May 2011 in the Pacific." [Christian Wolff, Gerald H. Haug, Axel Timmermann, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, Achim Brauer, Daniel M. Sigman, Mark A. Cane, Dirk Verschuren 2011: Science]
Read here. There are scientists from the past and present who have managed to command center stage of the world's press despite their known incompetencies. Kevin Trenberth is one such scientist. The media just plain love his shrill, non-scientific hysteria that human CO2 emissions cause cherry-picked weather disasters, yet the man has no empirical, scientific evidence to back it up.
Overall global hurricane/cyclone energy levels have recently reached new lows. This has taken place despite the global warming (disappearing?) caused by the evil human CO2 emissions.
In 2004 though, Trenberth proclaimed that hurricane frequency and intensity would increase, using only the highly speculative AGW hypothesis as his base of hysterical predictions - a definite non-expert, non-empirical fabrication.
An actual IPCC hurricane expert at the time took very serious issue with Trenberth's hurricane incompetence and fabrication of AGW-caused hurricane activity:
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s [coordinating] Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity...I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr.Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story…and that Dr.Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the [2001 Climate Bible], even though it is quite clear that [it] stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media…"
Obviously, Trenberth is a highly incompetent scientist, based just on his frequent wild-assed speculations that seemingly are always wrong. If the climate science community is ever wanting to be believed by the American public, they need to jettison Trenberth and his likes from the public podium and taxpayer funded research - it's a no-brainer.
Read here. The IPCC's climate models and its "consensus" of 97% of climate scientists have proven to be robustly wrong again. The prediction that global warming will cause an increase of storms with greater frequency does not hold up to empirical-based scrutiny.
Alexander et al. published a peer-reviewed study that found storms in the southeast region of Australia showing a significant reduction since the late 19th century.
"...analyzed storminess across the whole of southeast (SE) Australia using extreme (standardized seasonal 95th and 99th percentiles) geostrophic winds deduced from eight widespread stations possessing sub-daily atmospheric pressure observations dating back to the late 19th century...The four researchers report that their results "show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the past century." More specifically, they say that "in nearly all regions and seasons, linear trends estimated for both storm indices over the period analyzed show a decrease," while "in terms of the regional average series," they say that "all seasons show statistically significant declines in both storm indices, with the largest reductions in storminess in autumn and winter." [Lisa V. Alexander, Xiaolan L. Wang, Hui Wan, Blair Trewin 2011: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal]
Read here. The IPCC and its dreary band of Climategate "scientists" had proclaimed that climate models predicted increased flooding for the U.S. Midwest due to global warming. Empirical-based scientists investigated said speculative claims and found them without merit.
Villarini et al. examined 75 years of flooding for the following states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and Illinois.
"In an effort to determine if Upper Midwest U.S. floods have been increasing in recent years..."analyzed the annual maximum instantaneous flood peak distributions for 196 U.S. Geological Survey streamflow stations with a record of at least 75 years over the Midwest U.S."...four U.S. researchers report that in the vast majority of cases where streamflow changes were observed, they were "associated with change-points (both in mean and variance) rather than monotonic trends," and they indicate that "these non-stationarities are often associated with anthropogenic effects." But rather than increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they cite such things as "changes in land use/land cover, changes in agricultural practice, and construction of dams and reservoirs."...they conclude that "there is little indication that anthropogenic climate change has significantly affected the flood frequency distribution for the Midwest U.S." And as they make doubly clear in the abstract of their paper, they say that "trend analyses do not suggest an increase in the flood peak distribution due to anthropogenic climate change."" [Gabriele Villarini, James A. Smith, Mary Lynn Baeck, Witold F. Krajewski 2011: Journal of American Water Resources Association]
Read here. The prediction from climate "experts" and climate models was that human caused global warming will result in increased flooding of Germany's rivers. Empirical evidence does not support the prediction.
Bormann et al. analyzed multiple river characteristics, including flood frequency, peak discharge, peak stage and stage-discharge relationships.
"...driven by a desire to help resolve this climate-change impact debate, long time-series of stage and discharge data obtained from 78 river gauges in Germany...first established the nature of Germany's temperature history, noting that Schonwiese (1999) identified a homogenous positive trend of 0.5-1.0°C over the course of the 20th century, which was subsequently confirmed by Gerstengarbe and Werner (2008) and Bormann (2010)...they report that "most stations analyzed on the German rivers did not show statistically significant trends in any of the metrics analyzed.".....there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the warming experienced in Germany over the past century has not led to unprecedented flooding throughout the country. In fact, it has not led to any increase in flooding." [Helge Bormann, Nicholas Pinter, Simon Elfert 2011: Journal of Hydrology]
Read here. Canada's senior climatologist says this about the 1936 heat wave, putting the 2011 heat wave in context:
"Seventy-five years later, temperature records set during that scorching summer still stand in Ontario, Manitoba and 14 American states. "That's really still the granddaddy one of them all,"..."
"The heat wave of 1936 killed more Canadians than any other single weather event. About 780 people - mostly the elderly or infants - died because of it...Nearly 600 of the Canadian deaths were in Ontario, including more than 225 in Toronto alone...The heat contributed indirectly to the deaths of a further 400 Canadians, including weak swimmers who drowned seeking relief in the water. Others died in traffic accidents triggered by asphalt made slick and slippery by the baking sun."
For more articles on past heat wave go to this 'C3' weather incident page and scroll through the headlines. Or, when on that 'C3' page, use your web browser's built-in 'Find' tool (not the same as Google, Yahoo, Bing web search), enter the words "heat wave" (quote marks not needed). The built-in 'Find' tool will allow you to jump to each headline with the words "Heat Wave" on that specific 'C3' page.
Read here. After years of making hysterical claims about the phantom of global warming, most AGW alarmists (Gore and his "97% consensus") have moved onto claiming that severe weather events are a result of "climate change." The major sleazeball, green PR flaks have gone out of their way to promote this propaganda strategy after their global warming hysteria debacle failed so miserably.
Despite multiple weather/climate expert analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave, including NOAA's CSI team, that determined the heat wave was a natural phenomenon of weather, anti-science lefties/liberals/progressives/Democrats keep lying to the public about climate change being the cause.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study that refutes the climate change "truthers" lie once and for all.
Dole et al. found, like the NOAA the experts, that there is absolutely no evidence that climate change was the mysterious force behind the heat wave. They indeed validated the original conclusion of previous experts: it's the weather, get over it.
"The authors write that "the 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting all-time maximum temperature records."...nine U.S. researchers determined that "analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave." In fact, they say that the model simulations provided "evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone." Similarly, on the observation front, they state that "July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave show no significant warming trend over the prior 130-year period from 1880-2009," noting, in fact, that "a linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of -0.1°C."..."Thus, they say their analysis "points to a primarily natural cause for the Russian heat wave," noting that the event "appears to be mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained an intense and long-lived blocking event," adding that there are no indications that "blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases." [Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, Judith Perlwitz, Jon Eischeid, Philip Pegion, Tao Zhang, Xiao‐Wei Quan, Taiyi Xu, Donald Murray 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. It has been well established by the left/liberal lamestream media that 97% of "climate scientists" (that's all of 75 people) take their science lessons from Al Gore, the AGW Nobel prize winner. During 2007 Congressional testimony, Al Gore claimed that "droughts are becoming longer and more intense." As a result, a team of scientists decided to do a fact-check on Mr. Gore's (and his renowned 75 disciples) AGW-science claims. (Okay, okay.....probably Stambaugh et al. didn't give a hoot about Al Gore and the 97%-team.)
This new research determined that the 20th and 21st century droughts have been of little significance when compared to both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age droughts that were incredibly severe.
"The six scientists report that "20th century droughts, including the Dust Bowl, were relatively unremarkable when compared to drought durations prior to the instrumental record." They note, for example, that the 19th century was the driest of the past millennium, with major drought periods occurring from about 1816 to 1844 and 1849 to 1880, during what they describe as the transition out of the Little Ice Age...write that "the approximately 61-year drought in the late 12th century (ca. AD 1148-1208) appears to be the most significant drought of the entire reconstruction," noting that it "corresponds to the single greatest megadrought in North America during the last 2000 years (Cook et al., 2007), as well as "unmatched persistent low flows in western U.S. river basins (Meko et al., 2007)." And this drought, as they describe it, occurred during the middle of the Medieval Warm Period..." [Michael C. Stambaugh, Richard P. Guyette, Erin R. McMurry, Edward R. Cook, David M. Meko, Anthony R. Lupo 2011: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology]
Read here. Climate alarmists have made careers of claiming that severe weather is more frequent and of increasing intensity as a result of global warming. Many scientists, including those in China, don't necessarily believe the climate science emanating from green/left/liberal sources so they end up doing their own research to determine facts. In the case of hail size, Chinese scientists examined climate records to determine if hail was growing larger because of global warming.
Xie et al. examined records from four regions of China covering the 25 year span of 1980-2005. They found no significant relationship overall with global warming and the size of hail.
"...produced by a trio of scientists from Peking University and the University of Hawaii who must not have received the memo on global warming and extreme precipitation events as they state “The question remains as to whether hail size has been changing in response to the warming climate” (go look up “Global Warming and Hail” and enjoy 50,000 sites on the subject). Xie et al. collected hail size information from stations throughout China and at the end of their analyses, they state “Here, we found no significant long-term trend in hail size based on the proportion of severe hail indirectly in the four regions in China, suggesting that hail size, as an important aspect of hail climatology, may not be sensitive to the intrinsic natural variability or climate change in the last 2–3 decades.” Oops, another failure to link extreme precipitation to global warming." [Baoguo Xie, Qinghong Zhang, Yuqing Wang 2010: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Without a doubt, Democrats/liberals/leftists/progressives are committed to proving to the public that they might be dumbest "elites" ever conceived.
The global warming and climate change debate continues to provide the pertinent evidence that leftist-types are either stupendously stupid or hysterically anti-science.
Why would any person possessed with a modicum of common sense, with both feet firmly planted on terra firma, suggest that Mt. Rainier is currently short on snow and snow pack? My god, these people are sooo stupid, no? Again, thanks Al for helping the skeptic cause.
Read here. In peer-reviewed research published by the influential Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), scientists reconstructed 5,600 years of climate conditions in Greenland. This new reconstruction confirmed the warm and optimum climate conditions of the Medieval Warming and the rapid onset of the frigid Little Ice Age.
In the case of Greenland's flourishing Viking settlements, the climate change to a cold phase meant total destruction of their existing society and settlements.
This new PNAS study totally refutes Michael Mann's entirely bogus 'hockey stick' portrayal of climate being benign and unchanging prior to the 20th century.
"What climate scientists have been able to ascertain is that an extended cold snap, called the Little Ice Age, gripped Greenland beginning in the 1400s. This has been cited as a major cause of the Norse’s disappearance. Now researchers led by Brown University show the climate turned colder in an earlier span of several decades, setting in motion the end of the Greenland Norse...The Vikings arrived in Greenland in the 980s...The arrival coincided with a time of relatively mild weather, similar to that in Greenland today. However, beginning around 1100, the climate began an 80-year period in which temperatures dropped 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit), the Brown scientists concluded...“You have an interval when the summers are long and balmy [Editor: yes, Greenland summers "long and balmy" during the Medieval period] and you build up the size of your farm, and then suddenly year after year, you go into this cooling trend, and the summers are getting shorter and colder and you can’t make as much hay. You can imagine how that particular lifestyle may not be able to make it,”...[William J. D’Andreaa, Yongsong Huanga, Sherilyn C. Fritz, N. John Anderson 2011:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. NJ's Governor Christie and other hack, warming alarmist politicians, often assert that global warming is causing climate change that results in growing disaster losses. Unfortunately for presidential hopefuls like Christie, ignoring the actual empirical research is a nomination death wish now that the internet allows anyone to find out if a candidate has gone into 'bozo' alarmist mode.
A lesson to be learned in order to avoid looking like a climate 'bozo': future presidential hopefuls (and other politicians) should be very wary of most "science advisers" who have in mindpolitical agendas, not empirical science.
With that said, a Dutch scientist reviewed 22 recent peer-reviewed studies regarding disaster losses and global warming. Not a single study found a connection between extreme weather, global warming and increased disaster losses. The 22 studies covered the entire spectrum of disasters, including: bushfire, earthquake, flood, hail, landslide, windstorm, thunderstorm, tornado, tropical storm, hurricane and hail.
"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]
Read here. Over the historical past and throughout the 20th century, India suffered from many devastating droughts and famines. Recognizing the importance of rainfall to the sub-continent, the IPCC predicted that global warming will cause a decreasing trend in rainfall for India, potentially leading to even more dangerous droughts and famines. The latest peer-reviewed research though finds the IPCC prediction to be all wet.
Kumar et al. reviewed precipitation records over the period from 1871 to 2005. In summary, there was no significant trend for rainfall across India during this period of "unprecedented" warming that the IPCC contends was wreaking rainfall havoc on India and the world.
"In the words of the three researchers, "half of the sub-divisions showed an increasing trend in annual rainfall, but for only three was this trend statistically significant." Similarly, they state that "only one sub-division indicated a significant decreasing trend out of the 15 sub-divisions showing decreasing trend in annual rainfall." In terms of monthly rainfall during the monsoon months of June to September, they found that "during June and July, the number of sub-divisions showing increasing rainfall is almost equal to those showing decreasing rainfall," and in August they say that "the number of sub-divisions showing an increasing trend exceeds those showing a decreasing trend, whereas in September, the situation is the opposite." In addition, they report that "the majority of sub-divisions showed very little change in monthly rainfall in most of the months," while "for the whole of India, no significant trend was detected for annual, seasonal, or monthly rainfall."..."In every way that the data could be analyzed, Kumar et al. could find no hint of the decrease in rainfall that the IPCC had suggested would occur over India..." [Vijay Kumara; Sharad K. Jainb; Yatveer Singha 2010: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Read here, here, and here. The New York Times is a leading propagandist for human global warming and all of its associated catastrophic fantasies, but even they can't swallow the hysterical rants/claims of the George Soros controlled, partisan puppets. These are the irrational hacks, like Joe Romm, who are SHOUTING that US tornadoes are a result of human-induced warming - his rantings manage to portray the typical Democrat as exceedingly climate stupid and anti-science. Thank you, Joe!
Why did the NYTimes go out of its way to discredit the rabid, left/liberal anti-science, misinformation campaign by Soros et al.? Likely because the empirical evidence totally refutes the brain-dead propaganda that Soros-controlled media outlets spew out, and maybe the NYT's is getting sick and tired of the utter garbage science that Soros readers and Democrats are victims of.
Let's review the real-world science facts that the NY Times is admitting to. There simply is no empirical evidence that shows strong tornado frequency increasing (see first chart below, click to enlarge) due to warming. In fact, the evidence reveals just the opposite. It is well known, and beyond scientific doubt, that during spring seasons that are cooler than average, there is a higher likelihood conditions will spawn a greater number of ferocious tornadoes. This is especially the situation when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is also in its cooling phase (see charts 2 and 3 below).
And as the bottom two charts reveal, deaths from tornadoes has declined significantly as the U.S. has warmed over the past 110 years.
For further information regarding the total bogosity of Joe Romm's non-scientific claims, here's what the NOAA weather/climate forensic scientists say per Roger Pielke, Jr.
Read here. Michael Mann, the "scientist" behind the infamous hockey-stick and Climategate fiascoes, decided that the world could use his brand of discredited statistics and data manipulation concerning Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. He subsequently published a study purporting to show an increasing trend of hurricanes supposedly due to human-caused global warming. To the surprise of no one, a new peer-reviewed study by actual, honest-to-god, hurricane scientists makes a complete mockery of Mann's non-expertise of hurricanes.
Villarini et al., using widely accepted statistical and data methodology techniques, examined the hurricane information and compensated for the superior satellite hurricane detection capabilities over the last few decades. The end result? There is no increasing trend of hurricane activity.
"By using statistical methods combined with the current understanding of the physical processes, we are unable to find support for the hypothesis that the century-scale record of short-lived tropical cyclones in the Atlantic contains a detectable real climate signal...Moreover, based on these results and those of Vecchi and Knutson  it is unlikely that a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical storm counts would contain a statistically significant positive trend since the late 1800s. Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record." [Gabriele Villarini, Gabriel Vecchi, Thomas Knutson, James Smith 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. Climate alarmists and the IPCC have been aggressively trying to convince national policymakers and the public that dangerous climate change is affecting modern lives and it's due to human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the alarmists, the real world empirical evidence seems to always run counter to their assertions.
Another peer-reviewed scientific study, by Erlykin et al. this time, finds that modern fluctuations of temperature, storminess and precipitation are basically normal fluctuations - ergo, the weather still changes and includes extreme incidents, as has always been the case.
"The authors write that "there is argument as to the extent to which there has been an increase over the past few decades in the frequency of the extremes of climatic parameters, such as temperature, storminess, precipitation, etc., an obvious point being that Global Warming might be responsible."...The three researchers emphatically state that "in no case" have they found "indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time." More specifically, they say of the relative variability of global mean temperature that, "if anything, it illustrates an increased stability of the temperature since the 1930s," which they say "is not at all understood."" [Anatoly D. Erlykin, Arnold W. Wolfendale, Benjamin Laken 2011: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics]
Read here and here. Research was done to determine if ENSO events were drivers of hurricane formation frequency and intensity. In addition, the impact of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was investigated. These empirical results basically refute any connection to the non-scientific hysteria that global warming causes more hurricanes.
The peer-reviewed study found that over an extended period (1900-2008), La Niña conditions were strongly correlated to high activity hurricane seasons for the Atlantic and Caribbean basins, regardless of increasing CO2 levels and global warming. Also, it was found that a negative AMO phase in sync with an El Niño period was a combination that severely inhibited hurricane formation.
"...confirmed that "Atlantic basin hurricane activity is significantly reduced in El Niño years compared with La Niña years," and that "the largest impacts of ENSO on large-scale climate fields were shown to be in the Caribbean, with smaller signals observed over the remainder of the tropical Atlantic." He also determined that "the large-scale field that appears to be impacted the most by the phase of ENSO is the 200-850-mb vertical [wind] shear field, with considerably more shear present in El Niño years, especially over the Caribbean." And as would thus be expected, he reports that hurricane "landfalling frequency along the U.S. coastline is less in El Niño years as well,"..."in general, El Niño-La Niña relationships are stronger in the negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) than in the positive phase of the AMO."" [Philip J. Klotzbach 2011: Journal of Climate]
"...determined that "the probability of one or more hurricanes and major hurricanes tracking through the Caribbean increases dramatically from 39% and 26% in the 10 warmest ENSO years to 92% and 63% in the 10 coldest ENSO years, respectively," in harmony with the similar findings of Tartaglione et al. (2003), who additionally demonstrated that this cooling-induced response was likely due to "reductions in vertical wind shear and increases in low-level vorticity" in La Niña conditions...researcher also determined that "the impacts of ENSO are reduced slightly when the AMO is positive," and he found that "a negative AMO phase and El Niño combine to provide large-scale climate features that are especially hostile for tropical cyclones." [Philip J. Klotzbach 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Are extreme rain events happening with greater frequency as predicted by IPCC global warming scientists and alarmists? Chinese research efforts, Gemmer et al., studied the vast Zhujiang River Basin of South China and determined that despite the huge increases in CO2 over multiple decades, there is no trend increase of precipitation.
"The Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (Trenberth et al., 2007), in the words of the authors, "indicates that the frequency of heavy precipitation events will very likely increase in China."...Seeking to learn how this "indication" may or may not have developed throughout South China over the period 1961-2007, Gemmer et al. focused their attention on one of China's largest river basins: the Zhujiang (Pearl River) basin...they accomplished by applying nonparametric trend tests to daily precipitation data from 192 weather stations...they write that "less than 9% of all stations in the Zhujiang River basin show significant trends in annual extreme precipitation events...noting also that "no spatial pattern can be detected for the stations with significant trends."..."we can therefore conclude that no distinct regions in the Zhujiang River basin have experienced trends for annual indices."" [Gemmer, Marco, Thomas Fischer, Tong Jiang, Buda Su, Lü Liu Liu, 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here and here. So far, 2011 has produced a number of disastrous events including: extreme cold and snow, earthquakes, tsunamis, radiation releases, floods, fires, rainstorms and tornadoes. Recently, this has led the IPCC's big-guns, the ones who provided us with Climategate and put climate science into such deep disrepute, to opine that human CO2 and global warming are to blame for these severe weather events and other 2011 calamities.
In the realm of nature and Earth's climate though, a lot of really bad stuff happens and humans are not the cause of it. Take 1878/1879 for example - below are samples of what the newspapers and etc. reported those years. Be thankful it's not the 1878/1879 period, or many other really bad years.
1878: Southern England Suffers Rare Tornado, Followed By Snow
1878: Winter In England Is 5.4 Degrees Colder Than Average
1878: Devastating Hurricane Strikes Tahiti
1878: Terrible Australian Drought Followed By Disastrous Floods
1878: Ceylon Hit By Multiple Floods Causing Great Property Damage
1878: Indian Ocean Cyclone Wipes Bourbon Island Clean
1878: Immense Floods Overwhelm Sacramento, California Region
1878: Great Floods In England's Thames Valley
1878: Hundreds Lost At Sea During Bay of Biscay, Spain Hurricane
1878: Wisconsin Tornado Hits Multiple Rural Towns, 30 People Killed
1878: France Experiences Large Floods
1878: Three Year Massive Drought & Famine Ends In India
1878: Officially announced that 7,000,000 persons have died of “famine in China.”
1878: Brooklyn, NY Has Malaria Outbreak
1878: Hurricane & Two Waterspouts Bash Canton, China
1878: Eleven Days of Extreme Hot Temperatures Torch America's Midwest
1878: Southern Morocco Droughts Turns Populace Into "Living Skeletons"
1878: Hailstorm In Austria Wrecks Crops, Hailstones Unusually Large
1878: Severe Thunderstorms & Hailstorms Thrash Switzerland - Fires and Floods Result
1878: Prolonged Drought In South Africa Threatens Disastrous Famine
1878: Terrible Gale Strikes England's Coast, 400 Out of 500 Fishing Boats Lost
1879: 70 Million Chinese People Starving From “2 centuries of climatic change almost without a parallel”
1879: Account – Destructive Earthquakes Hit Japan Every Ten Years
1879: 165 MPH Winds Pummel North Carolina
1879: Half A Million Dead In Brazil From Drought, Starvation And Pestilence
Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth are individuals who will use any disaterous event, regardless of the science and empirical evidence, to bolster the fortunes of their failed AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately for these IPCC "scientists", history is replete with years of disasterous events prior to large human CO2 emissions. And every year, more and more of the global public recognizes that the truth is different than what Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth claim.