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.
Read here. Map source here. Wet, cold, stormy, miserable, severe weather can be an indicator of a global cooling climate phase. As past empirical evidence well documents, the climate makes swings from warmer to cooler phases, which impacts local and regional weather patterns.
New research (Griessinger et al.) from China confirms that global cooling can cause weather to become wetter and soggier even in semi-arid areas during the hot summer months of the Northern Hemisphere. (click on images to enlarge)
"Based on correlations they exhibited with climate data, tree-ring δ18O measurements of high-elevation Tibetan junipertrees...state that the 800-year annually-resolved oxygen isotope series they developed reflects long-term variations in Asian summer monsoon (ASM) activity in that part of the world. And this history, as they describe it, reveals an "ASM minimum during the Medieval Warm Period (around 1200-1400) and moister conditions during the Little Ice Age (1400-1900),"...This close but inverse correspondence between centennial-scale precipitation anomalies and similar well-known global temperature anomalies (the MWP, LIA and CWP) provides further evidence for the historical reality of the MWP on the Tibetan Plateau,..." [Jussi Grissinger, Achim Bräuning, Gerd Helle, Axel Thomas, Gerhard Schleser 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Bozo climate predictions appear to be the IPCC's raison d'être, which they definitely excel at. The latest bozo climate prediction found to be erroneous is that global warming, due to human CO2 emission increases, will cause more precipitation, thus causing more floods of greater frequency and intensity. Fortunately for the world, the IPCC is wrong again.
Bouziotas et al. determined with 50+ years of empirical evidence from 119 stations that the frequency and intensity of floods has not increased and may actually be slightly decreasing. (click on image to enlarge)
"Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."..."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." ["Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."....."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." [Dimitris Bouziotas, Georgios Deskos, Nikos Mastrantonas, Dimosthenis Tsaknias, Grigorios Vangelidis, Simon-Michael Papalexiou, and Demetris Koutsoyiannis 2011: European Geosciences Union]
In Europe's past there have been severe superstorms (category 3 intensity or more) that have struck the Mediterranean coast of Europe. By analyzing sediment cores, Dezileau et al. were able to determine that all the catastrophic storms struck before 1900, primarily during the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age and the onset of the cooler Dark Ages.
The evidence shows that periods of global cooling trends, not global warming phases, are when Europe is at its most vulnerable for Mediterranean superstorms striking.
"With respect to extreme weather events, the authors write that the major question of the day is: "are they linked to global warming or are they part of natural climate variability?"...because "these extreme events are inherently rare and therefore difficult to observe in the period of a human life."...Dezileau et al. assessed "the frequency and intensity of these events during the last 1500 years," as well as "links between past climatic conditions and storm activities."...report they found evidence of four "catastrophic storms of category 3 intensity or more," which occurred at approximately AD 455, 1742, 1848 and 1893...all four of the storms "can be called superstorms."...Dezileau et al. suggest that "extreme storm events are associated with a large cooling of Europe,"..." [L. Dezileaua, P. Sabatiera, P. Blanchemanchec, B. Jolyd, D. Swingedouwe, C. Cassoue, J. Castaingsa, P. Martinezf and U. Von Grafensteing 2011: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
Read here. Alarmists, and their mainstream media collaborators, have been predicting for decades that global warming induced climate change will cause more frequent severe weather events, resulting in ever growing economic losses from disasters. Do their predictions have scientific merit though?
Despite the world warming since the late 1970's through the late 90's, experts and scientists have been unable to find evidence of what alarmists have predicted about weather-related economic losses. A 2011 study published by Neumayer and Barthel confirms the stark, naked reality: the alarmists were wrong, again.
Although a massive, abrupt climate change could cause incredible damage and losses, modern climate change from recent warming is a condition that humans readily adapt to.
"Authors investigate the question, "Has economic damage from natural disasters increased over time?"...they did a global analysis using a global database of more uniform quality compiled by the reinsurance company, MunichRe, for 1990-2008. They also undertook separate analyses for developed countries, developing countries, U.S and Canada, Western Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South and East Asia...they looked at evidence for trends in economic losses from (a) all natural disasters, and (b) all weather-related disasters.....Regardless of which normalization method is used, the researchers found no significant upward trend in normalized economic losses for either all natural disasters or weather related disasters. This was true at the global level, for developed countries, developing countries as well as for the specific regions that were examined." [Neumayer, E., and Barthel, F. 2011: Global Environmental Change]
Read here. Global warming and climate change alarmists always attempt to connect an extreme weather event with CO2-induced global warming or human-caused climate change. They always perform this verbal trick without any investigation and analysis of the actual scientific evidence. As is the usual outcome, almost 100% of the time, when the science due diligence is completed, the alarmist claim is without merit. It happened again with the claims of extreme rainfall in the New England area.
In a new peer-reviewed study, scientists examining recent decade events of extreme rainfall found that they were not actually extraordinary when the long-term weather record of events was considered. Going back to 1893, they confirmed that the trend of extreme rainfall was unchanging, and indeed that these events also happened well before the human CO2 increase, which is purported to cause more rain and extreme weather.
In essence, they re-discovered that extreme rainfall events are the natural order of things - they happen regardless of man or CO2.
"Concerned with the oft-heard contention that "the climate is changing across North America," and that precipitation events "have been occurring more frequently and with much greater intensity in the last few decades than has been seen in the past"...the two researchers had as their objective "to investigate the presence of trends in extreme precipitation.....the two researchers did indeed determine there was "a strong increase in the magnitude of extreme precipitation events over the last three decades," and they also determined that "the frequency of extreme rainfall events appears to be increasing." But over the much longer 51-year period of 1954-2005, they found that the trend in MAXP [extreme precipitation] was "amazingly stationary." And working with seven stations having records stretching all the way back to 1893, they also found that "annual maximum precipitation in northern New England was relatively stationary..." [Ellen M. Douglas and Chelsea A. Fairbank 2011: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering]
Read here. The IPCC has claimed that semi-arid and desert areas will become hotter and drier because of global warming, thus making areas less hospitable to vegetation causing deserts to enlarge. Amazingly (Not!), the blanket IPCC claim is another failed prediction as scientists in China have confirmed.
Peng et al. analyzed data (1980-2006) from China's most arid regions and discovered that winter precipitation had increased. In addition, vegetation growth increased in these areas, which likely contributed to the decline of China's dust storms over recent decades.
"The five researchers report that "over the past three decades, winter snow depth overall increased in northern China, particularly in the most arid and semiarid regions of western China where desert and grassland are mainly distributed," and they say that in those specific areas there were positive correlations between mean winter snow depth and spring NDVI data.....they note that Piao et al. (2005) determined that the net primary productivity of the same desert and grasslands during 1982-1999 "increased by 1.6% per year and 1.1% per year, respectively," and that "desertification has been reversed in some areas of western China since the 1980s,".....write that the "increase in vegetation coverage in arid and semiarid regions of China, possibly driven by winter snow, will likely restore soil and enhance its antiwind-erosion ability, reducing the possibility of released dust and mitigating sand-dust storms," while noting that the frequency of sand-dust storms has indeed "declined in China since the early 1980s." [Shushi Peng, Shilong Piao, Philippe Ciais, Jingyun Fang, and Xuhui Wang 2010: Global Change Biology]
Read here. Could the rare, massive hurricane again strike the New York and New England region as one did in 1938? That disaster was the result of a combination of a Pacific La Niña phase and a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) phase. Unfortunately for 2011, those same climatic conditions exist, and it has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.
If this 2011 combination of climate factors persist, the U.S. east coast will be extremely vulnerable throughout the hurricane season, including major metropolitan areas that rarely experience the full wrath of a hurricane.
And, if this type of disaster plays out in 2011, what is the likelihood that Obama and Democrats will blame human CO2 emissions? 100 percent?
"At 2:30 p.m., the 50-mile wide eye of the  storm is over Long Island with a central pressure of an unprecedented 27.94 inches. Wind gusts estimated as high as 150 and 200 mph are pounding parts of Long Island and the offshore waters.....As the eye of the storm approaches Long Island, south coast residents watch as a thick bank of “fog” twenty-five to forty feet high rolls in towards the south-facing coast. But what they think is a fog bank is really the storm surge, a virtual mountain of water that is associated with the extremely strong winds and low pressure near the center of the storm. Many die on Long Island as this wall of water smashes ashore. Huge waves, of 30 feet or more atop the storm surge add to the destructive power. The storm tide completely engulfs Fire Island. The impact of the storm surge is so great, that it actually shows up on the earthquake seismographs at Fordham University in New York City and Sitka, Alaska.....the great Hurricane speeds to New England, again with a killer storm surge. Storm tides of 14 to 18 feet are experienced across most of the Connecticut coast with 18 to 25 foot tides from New London to Cape Cod. In Narragansett Bay, a storm surge of 12 to 15 feet destroys most coastal homes, marinas and yacht clubs.....Just over an hour later, the storm was devastating the city. Providence reports 100 mph sustained winds with gusts to 125 mph. But the real killer is the water. Downtown Providence is submerged under a storm tide of nearly 20 feet. The storm tide carries boats and houses into the capital, flooding downtown buildings, where workers are just preparing to leave for the day. Having no idea what a storm surge is, many workers do not evacuate and are trapped and drown where they work."
Read here. As most residents of the Sierra Nevada Mountains know, the IPCC claims of declining snowfall in the Sierra Neveda Mountains has been thoroughly invalidated by regular anecdotal evidence. Now, new scientific research confirms that the global models used by the IPCC to predict snowfall are indeed worthless, as this peer-reviewed study documents:
"Christy and Hnilo reconstructed a time series of annual snowfall totals for Huntington Lake in the southern Sierra Nevada of California over the period 1916 to 2009. Results indicated a mean annual snowfall at Huntington Lake of 624 cm over the period of record, with an insignificant positive trend of increasing snowfall of 0.5 cm per decade.....conclude "these results combined with published temperature time series, which also reveal no significant trends, form a consistent picture of no remarkable long-term changes in the snowfall of this area and elevation of the southern Sierra Nevada of California since the early 20th century." In contrast with model projections of the western USA becoming drier as a results of CO2-induced global warming, the supposedly unprecedented 20th century rise in air temperature has had no measurable effect on Sierra Nevada snowfall at Huntington Lake." [John R. Christy and Justin J. Hnilo 2010: Energy & Environment]
Read here. The latest climate research from Australian climate change scientists finds that cyclones/tropical storms can actually decrease in number during global warming phases, which confirms the empirical evidence over the last several years. These findings contradict the IPCC consensus prediction and supports the conclusions of skeptical CAGW scientists. (click on image to enlarge)
"CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast."
Read here. Latest research out of Japan confirms IPCC-based climate models to be worthless, again. Climate models had predicted that CO2 induced global warming would cause precipitation levels to increase. Despite a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over 100 years, the Japanese regional rainfall data studies show no increase in precipitation.
"Using digitized historical daily precipitation data from 37 stations of the Japan Meteorological Agency -- which were spread across both Eastern and Western Japan... -- Endo analyzed the data for "long-term changes of the Baiu rainfall during the last 109 years," in order to see how close they would come to confirming or refuting state-of-the-art climate model predictions of increased rainfall.....he adds that the same holds true, i.e., that no significant trends are recognized, "in the entire Baiu season (June to July) over all regions.".....Endo's findings clearly indicate that climate model projections of increased Baiu rainfall in response to global warming...over a period of time when the world's climate alarmists claim the earth warmed at a rate and to a level that were both unprecedented over the past millennium or more -- are simply not correct." [Hirokazu Endo 2011: Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere]
Steve Goddard has been doing extensive research over recent weeks in regards to past natural disasters and bad weather events. History is rife with these incidents and the vast majority of them occurred under a regime of a "safe 350 ppm CO2 or lower", as Steve frequently puts it.
Steve's work has been a fascinating read as he publishes his research and that of his blog readers. I was curious to see though the historical chronology of Steve's postings, so I decided to dedicate a page to his posting links, but placed them in calendar year order, not in his original publication date order.
When viewed in annual historical order, you get a real sense of déjà vu, all over again. Especially the same old, same old hysterical reporting from the mainstream press.
The page of his links looks like the below. Click here to be taken to this new page. In addition, I've augmented Steve's links with a few stories from other sources, including a couple from 'C3'. Finally, if Steve keeps publishing articles like these, I will attempt to keep this new page updated in a timely manner, in a calendar year order.
Read here. The global warming hypothesis (AGW) and alarmists make the claim that warming will induce a greater frequency and intensity of rainfall events. From the empirical evidence, it is now known that an "increase" of storm activity, such as hurricanes, has actually been on the decrease. (click on image to enlarge)
Yet, there are areas of the world where increases of heavy rainfalls have been noted. One such area is the monsoon region of India. Now, after much research, scientists are saying that the increase of heavy rainfalls is actually being caused by urbanization, not global warming. In essence, as researchers (Kishtawal et al.) have shown, urban areas have experienced the increase of intense rainfall events, not rural areas in the same region.
"In a study of the Indian subcontinent, Kishtawal et al. assessed the impacts of urbanization on the region's rainfall characteristics during the time of the Indian summer monsoon by analyzing in situ and satellite-based precipitation and population datasets...their study showed "a significantly increasing trend in the frequency of heavy rainfall climatology over urban regions of India during the monsoon season," adding that "urban regions experience less occurrences of light rainfall and significantly higher occurrences of intense precipitation compared to non-urban regions.".....The authors note that the early studies of Changnon (1968), Landsberg (1970) and Huff and Changnon (1972) yielded "evidence of warm seasonal rainfall increases of 9-17% downwind of major cities,"" [C. M. Kishtawal, Dev Niyogi, Mukul Tewari, Roger A. Pielke Sr., J. Marshall Shepherd 2010: International Journal of Climatology]
Read here, and new climate oscillation graphs below.
The global warming causes cold and snow lie continues to be spread by the left/liberal propaganda machine.
Despite the name that suggests it embraces science, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) predictably agrees with Hollywood celebrities, and other publicity hounds, who believe that cold and snowy winters are now the result of global warming. Obviously choosing the Charlie Sheens of science as their consultants, the Union must be unfamiliar with the actual climate science, and the known empirical evidence. It's time to bring them up to speed.
1. Multiple climate scientists, including one of the most prominent NASA scientists, have stated that the global warming theory really doesn't support the Hollywood myth that GW causes adverse weather events. This includes the incredibly lame, anti-science claim that winter snow and cold is now the result of warming.
2. NOAA's forensic climate group of scientists have analyzed the recent cold, snowy weather and have concluded that this season's bad weather is due to natural climate oscillations that unfortunately worked in concert to produce bad weather. In addition, NOAA's real-world climate scientists also confirmed that the 2010 summer events, including the Russian heat wave and Pakistan monsoon flooding, had nothing to do with global warming.
3. And, regardless of Hollywood's and the MSM's claims, the UCS is amazingly forgetting the known science, which finds that this winter's weather is not so extreme that it lies outside the normal, historical winter variation of past years. (And by the way, over the last 200 years, the mainstream media has recorded multiple winter bad weather events that rivaled or exceeded the 2010/2011 winter, which this site would keep the UCS easily abreast of.)
[Note to UCS: One wonders if it would really be too much to ask "concerned" scientists to actually analyze current weather records versus past weather records before inserting feet in mouths.]
4. After multiple billions of dollars being expended on climate research over the past few decades, scientists have discovered, and documented, that multiple, natural climate oscillations/patterns dictate the cold weather, extreme events. This is especially true during those rare occasions when these multiple patterns get in 'sync.'
[Honestly, the UCS and theirmouthpiececollaborators must know this, but their fanatic desire to religiously push the global warming political agenda instead, positions themselves as obvious anti-science charlatans, or would global-warming-snow 'liars' be more accurate in this case?]
In a previous post, it was shown that the 2010/2011 winter was most likely a result of multiple climate oscillations/patterns working in rare concert to bring the northern hemisphere miserable winter weather. How about previous severe winters? Did a similar, past congruence of climate patterns also result in severe cold and snow?
As people with long memories recall, the 2010/2011 winter reminded many of the extreme cold and snow weather that took place during both the 1962/1963 and the 1978/1979 winters. As European and North American regional weather records show, for certain northern hemisphere areas those winters were truly brutal, and they shared a common characteristic with the brutal 2010/2011 winter: six climate patterns in extreme sync at the same time.
The climate oscillations during the 2010/2011 winter: (click on images to enlarge)
The climate oscillations during the severe 1978/1979 winter:
The climate oscillations during the severe 1962/1963 winter:
What do these three winters have in common? As the NOAA scientists have stated, severe winters are likely to occur if both the El Nino (ONI-red curve) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO-dark blue curve) are moving towards and/or inhabit the strong negative mode of their respective patterns. Clearly, all three severe winters (light blue-shaded areas above) depicted share those traits.
In addition, during the 2010/11, 1978/79, and the 1962/63 severe winters, the other major climate patterns (the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the Southern Oscillation (SO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) were also moving towards and/or inhabiting the extreme ranges of their variation. The three blue-shaded areas of the charts reveal those rare periods when these patterns are in 'sync' during winter, which will likely result in harsh winter conditions in regions of the northern hemisphere when (not if) it happens again.
As a reminder to the UCS (you are scientists, correct?), these climate patterns are not a result of human CO2, nor are they a result of global warming. These climate patterns are natural, and they are also very difficult to predict the direction and magnitude of, let alone predicting a a rare synchronization or congruence of all the patterns. Yet some who actually study weather science and these climate patterns can make fairly accurate winter predictions well before winter's onset, unlike your UCS clowns that no one should believe.
Note: For the above graphical portrayals, the SOI was fractionally reduced for each month in order for it to scale visually with the other indicies. Also, both the SOI and the AAO (the two green curves) had their numeric signs reversed to better portray visually the rare direction/magnitude 'sync' of all six patterns. Actual data for each graph above can be found here.
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have predicted that global warming would increase the occurrence of floods on one hand, and on the other hand, warming would increase the frequency of droughts. As with most IPCC predictions, peer-reviewed research typically finds the IPCC predictions to be flops.
Scientists Korhonen and Kuusisto analyzed Finnish rivers and lakes to determine if IPCC prediction had validity.
"The authors write that "annual mean temperatures in Finland increased by about 0.7°C during the 20th century," citing Jylha et al. (2004), while noting that under such a warming regime, "both droughts and floods are expected to intensify," which is the claim of climate-alarmists the world over.....the peak of spring flow has become 1-8 days earlier per decade at over one-third of all studied sites." However, they say that "the magnitudes of spring high flow have not changed." On the other hand, low flows, in their words, "have increased at about half of the unregulated sites due to an increase in both winter and summer discharges." Nevertheless, they indicate that "statistically significant overall changes have not been observed in mean annual discharge."" [Johanna Korhonen and Esko Kuusisto 2010: Hydrology Research]
Previous 'C3' postings have discussed the incredibleandhysterical alarmist claims that Arctic warming was causing colder temperatures and snowstorms in more southern latitudes. As the CSI group of NOAA scientists determined, the principal culprits causing the December, January and February snowstorms were the climate oscillations known as El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which were simultaneously in a negative mode.
Having these two oscillations in the negative phase during winter months does not bode well for areas of Europe and the United States, in terms of cold and snow. But what happens when there are four major climate patterns all in their respective negative modes?
If all four patterns are in the negative mode, the predictability of foul winter weather happening in large areas of North America and Eurasia becomes incredibly high - and it has absolutely nothing to do with human CO2 and/or Arctic warming. These climate patterns are natural. (click on images to enlarge)
Note: The black curve in each graph represents a polynomial attempt at curve fitting. The curve indicates where the data has been in terms of overall direction at different periods. The curve has no statistical predictability value.
Update of interest, 3-2-11: While examining both the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) and Southern Oscillation (SO), it appeared to the naked eye that both of these indicies were usually in their own negative mode when the El Niño was in its positive mode, as represented by the ONI index. By flipping the plotted data for both the SO and the AAO, the similarity for latter part of 2010, and previous periods, becomes more apparent.
The graphical depictions of these six climate patterns reveal that all were moving towards and/or occupying extreme points of their historical variation ranges, while the winter weather in the northern hemisphere was getting worse during the 2010/2011 winter (in terms of cold and precipitation).
First, from the Danish Institute Centre for Ocean and Ice dataset of the region north of 80°, it's obvious that the Arctic polar area has not been exceptionally warm the past year versus previous periods. Indeed, as the 2010 graph reveals, the 2010 polar summer was one of the coldest compared to the long-term average (green curve) - see top of 2010 curve that has temperatures below the average summer period, close to the blue melt line. (click on images to enlarge)
Second, as the below Rutger's dataset reveals, the northern hemisphere snow coverage through the end of January 2011 is not exceptional. The 37-month average confirms that the alarmist idea that recent atmospheric "warm" conditions are holding loads of moisture ready to blanket the northern hemisphere is a bunch of bunk. Nothing extraordinary here, move along Mr./Ms. alarmist.
Finally, a graph of the precipitation rate for the northern hemisphere, generated from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysisdataset, shows a slow decline of precipitation rates over an extended period. It certainly does not indicate that recent year's winter precipitation was exceptionally high. As the matter of fact, the below graph suggests that the AGW hypothesis of a warming atmosphere holding more moisture that in turn causes more precipitation is suspect.
Although there have been specific regions in the northern hemisphere that have experienced large snowstorms the past few months, these exceptions happen every year in some part of the world during winter months. Based on the Arctic polar temperatures, and the level of snow coverage and trend of precipitation rates though, the alarmist claim that global warming in the Arctic is causing more snow and cold for more southern latitudes just does not hold any water, per the empirical data.
One other eye-opening graph comes from the good folks at www.climate4you.com. This graph plots the relative humidity at different atmospheric heights, which clearly shows that "global warming" is not causing relative humidity to increase as the AGW theory requires. (Hmmm...,or is this a graph of alarmist humility as their beloved theory disintegrates with every new data point?)
Update: Confirmed via email with Gorm of the Danish Institute Centre for Ocean and Ice that their Arctic temperatures are not extrapolated from regions outside of the Arctic area - unlike NASA, which extrapolates (calculates) temperatures from weather stations located 1,200 kilometers south of the Arctic. To put the NASA methodology in geographical context, they would calculate Toronto, Canada temperatures based on Myrtle Beach, South Carolina weather information, which is 1,200 km south of Toronto. Of the major world climate agencies, only NASA is dumb enough to perform this ludicrous 1,200 km extrapolation. It's the primary reason their Arctic temperatures are so off-the-wall bizarre.
Read here and here. The recent cold and snowy weather that some regions of the northern hemisphere have recently suffered has been determined by climate scientists to be a direct result of major ocean/atmospheric oscillations - namely, the combined, simultaneous negative modes of: the NAO, the AO and the El Niño. In the most prominent analysis, NOAA climate scientists revealed what the greenhouse gas-based climate models predicted in terms of winter precipitation (top chart) and what was actually observed (bottom chart). (click on images to enlarge; images source here)
By comparing these two charts, the virtual world versus the real-world, it is obvious there are significant issues (problems? failures?) with the government, bureaucrat-scientist designed climate models.
Those issues? One, climate models are totally inept at predictions and forecasting, even in the short-run of several months. Two, CO2 and other human produced greenhouse gases have little, if any, causation for producing severe weather, such as cold and precipitation. Or, three, a combination of the latter two, which help explains why climate modellers are sooo wrong, sooo frequently.
To put this into greater context of CO2-based climate models' and modeller failures, recall the utter failure of recent hurricane/cyclone seasonal forecasts for their being more intense and frequent; the prediction failure of the 2010 Russian heat wave; and, the concurrent failure to predict the large Pakistan rain/flooding event.
Yet, left/liberal/progressive "scientists" pushing their favored political agenda continue to proselytize the idea that CO2 and global warming are the cause of severe weather events, including the current severe cold and snow. Their denial of both the actual empirical evidence and peer-reviewed scientific literature is a conclusive testament to the left's anti-science mentality and propaganda.
Read here. IPCC's Climategate scientists and big government funded alarmists have claimed that atmospheric CO2 increases and "associated" warming will cause more frequent extreme dry (drought) and wet (flood) periods. The latest research, however, clearly documents that extreme dry and wet periods have naturally occurred over thousands of years, with larger shifts starting about 1000 years ago - well before the growth of CO2 levels.
The takeaway point: the level of CO2 is completely irrelevant in terms of climate change, as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Nelson et al. shows. h/t WUWT (click on image to enlarge)
"The researchers analyzed a sediment core from Castor Lake in north central Washington to plot the region’s drought history since around 4,000 BCE and found that wet and dry cycles during the past millennium have grown longer. The team attributed this recent deviation to the irregular pressure and temperature changes brought on by El Niño/La Niña.....“Western states happened to build dams and water systems during a period that was unusually wet compared to the past 6,000 years,”...“Now the cycle has changed and is trending drier, which is actually normal..."...Analysis of the sediment core revealed that the climate of the Pacific Northwest fluctuated more or less evenly between wet and dry periods for thousands of years.....since around 1000 AD, these periods have become longer, shifted less frequently, and, most importantly, ushered in more extreme conditions.....The change in cycle regularity Abbott and his colleagues found correlates with documented activity of El Niño/La Niña."[Daniel B. Nelson, Mark B. Abbott, Byron Steinman, Pratigya J. Polissar, Nathan D. Stansella, Joseph D. Ortiz, Michael F. Rosenmeier, Bruce P. Finney, Jon Riedel 2010: PNAS]
Read here. For decades, AGW alarmists have been predicting an increase of cyclone/hurricane frequency and intensity due to CO2-induced global warming. Unfortunately for the alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists, the predictions have been hugely wrong.
In another study regarding tropical cyclones, researchers documented the lack of a relationship between warming and cyclone activity.
"The authors analyzed various cyclone characteristics based on four decades of cyclone season data contained in the regional cyclone archive of the tropical South Pacific that is maintained by the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) located at Nadi in the Fiji Islands...Terry and Gienko state that "no linear trends were revealed in cyclogenesis origins, cyclone duration, track length or track azimuth over the four decades of records,".....In discussing the first of these findings, the two researchers say that the lack of linear trends in the four cyclone parameters they analyzed "implies that there is as yet no evidence for climate-change forcing of these storm characteristics over recent historical times."" [James P. Terry, Gennady Gienko 2010: Climate Research]
Read here. The standard climate alarmist operating procedure for most leftists/liberals/progressives is to blame any major weather event as the result of CO2-induced global warming. No matter how unlikely and tenuous the relationship between warming and the weather event might be, the alarmists, from the event's gitgo, just fabricate lies about cause and effect, hoping the compliant mainstream media will simply parrot the lies to promote the political agenda against CO2.
This past summer we saw this happen with the Russian heat wave and the Pakistan floods - an immediate alarmist claim that these events were the result of global warming. As is usually the case, climate scientists eventually determined the liberal/left/progressive/Democrat alarmist claims (that global warming was the culprit for 2010 flooding and heat waves) were revealed to be convenient lies for political purposes. The same has now happened for the big snows that hit the U.S. - NOAA confirms that prominent AGW alarmists were lying again:
"Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The [NOAA] CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall."
Read here. Using the standard IPCC's Climategate "scientific" methodology, we have concluded that large human CO2 emissions directly cause fewer severe droughts. This must be the case since no other known factor(s) could possibly be responsible for less severe droughts in the southern region of South America. /sarc.
Per the Minetti et al. peer-reviewed study:
"...the presence of long favorable tendencies [1901-2000] regarding precipitations or the inverse of droughts occurrence are confirmed for the eastern Andes Mountains in Argentina with its five sub-regions (Northwest Argentina, Northeast Argentina, Humid Pampa, West-Centre Provinces and Patagonia) and the inverse over the central region of Chile." From the middle of 2003 to 2009, however, they report "an upward trend in the occurrence of droughts with a slight moderation over the year 2006." Last of all, they note that the driest single year periods were 1910-11, 1915-16, 1916-17, 1924-25 and 1933-34." [J. L. Minetti, W. M. Vargas, A. G. Poblete, L. R. de la Zerda and L. R. Acuña 2010: Theoretical and Applied Climatology]
Read here. Map source (click on image to enlarge). The sad record of failed IPCC and Climategate scientist predictions of global-warming caused disasters continues. Climate alarmists have been predicting that a warming climate will provoke increased flooding, due to a warmer atmosphere holding increased water moisture.
Scientists, Czymzik et al., analyzing 450 years of data from Germany, found the IPCC's increased flooding prediction to be the total opposite of reality. Instead, it was determined that colder climates have a greater frequency of floods.
"...the authors write that "assumptions about an increase in extreme flood events due to an intensified hydrological cycle caused by global warming are still under discussion and must be better verified," while noting that some historical flood records indicate that "flood frequencies were higher during colder periods.....The six scientists determined that the flood frequency distribution over the entire 450-year time series "is not stationary but reveals maxima for colder periods of the Little Ice Age when solar activity was reduced," while reporting that "similar observations have been made in historical flood time series of the River Main, located approximately 200 km north.....As time marches on and as ever more studies of this nature are conducted in Europe and elsewhere, it is becoming ever more clear that the climate-alarmist assumption -- as Czymzik et al. describe it -- of "an increase in extreme flood events due to an intensified hydrological cycle caused by global warming" is simply not correct." [Markus Czymzik, Peter Dulski, Birgit Plessen, Ulrich von Grafenstein, Rudolf Naumann, Achim Brauer 2010; Water Resources Research]