The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.
Whether the "experts" are the IPCC's climate models or associated scientists, their climate predictions for Northern Hemisphere snow extent, i.e., square kilometer coverage, have been robustly wrong...
(click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC has become globally infamous for their atrocious climate change, global warming predictions (read brief summary).
There are multiple examples of the up-to-date empirical evidence confirming that the IPCC's doomsday climate predictions are without merit - here, here, here and here are just a few examples.
And at the close of March 2014, it is now possible to compare the latest empirical evidence versus the IPCC "expert" prediction that human CO2 emissions would severely reduce snow coverage across the Northern Hemisphere during winter months (December, January, February and March).
As this accompanying chart obviously indicates, snow extent has actually increased over the short term (see 3-year average curve); and since the beginning of the dataset, winter snows have ranged within a narrow band.
During any given year's winter, there are periods of extremely large snow extent, soon to be followed by low extremes. This natural variation occurs despite the growing surge of CO2 emissions, as denoted by the methodically increasing black step-curve.
For many regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the past several winters since 2007 have witnessed brutal winters of extreme snow and cold, which the upsurge of the chart's 3-year average curve corroborates. As additional corraboration, there is the actual global sea ice growth that also mocks the "expert" IPCC predictions.
Addtional severe-weather articles and charts. Chronological list of severe weather/climate events.
Note: Datasets used to plot Excel chart: snow and CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.
The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.
The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).
Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.
Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.
Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?
Ahhh.....those stubborn facts. The "consensus" climate science "experts" have been constantly bedeviled by the empirical climate reality, such as this...
(click on chart to enlarge)
NOAA's empirical evidence does not lie, nor deny. Over the last 205 months (Feb. 1, 1997 thru Feb. 28, 2014), the continental U.S. has cooled at a per century rate of -0.96°C.
This has taken place despite the assurance of almost every taxpayer-funded climate scientist that the exact opposite would happen.
They told us that their powerful and sophisticated computer climate models could accurately predict what future climate conditions we would experience.
Except they were spectacularly wrong from day one; and yet, they kept spending multi-billions of taxpayer funds by throwing it down this failed climate research rabbit hole.
Why were the "experts" and the computer simulations so, so wrong?
From a recent essay about this gigantic and embarrassing failure by government scientists, we learn:
"Realities about climate models are much more prosaic. They don’t and can’t work because data, knowledge of atmospheric, oceanographic, and extraterrestrial mechanisms, and computer capacity are all totally inadequate. Computer climate models are a waste of time and money...Inadequacies are confirmed by the complete failure of all forecasts, predictions, projections, prognostications, or whatever they call them."
Another new study by climate "experts" produces even more speculation as to why the modern global warming 'Pause' has unexpectedly happened ... in the meantime, per NOAA.......
(click on chart to enlarge)
(click on chart to enlarge)
The never predicted 'Pause' has no equal as the chart on the left begins to suggest. This chart is a plot of total temperature anomaly differences (i.e. total monthly change, month by month) since February 1998 through December 2013.
NOAA's year-end 2013 published monthly temperature dataset has identified February 1998 as the highest temperature anomaly month ever. And as the chart indicates, for the subsequent 190 months, that 1998 peak was never topped, despite an average 29.5 billion new tons of CO2 emissions per year over that time span.
Since the modern era beginning with the 1950s, that 190-month stretch is the longest uninterrupted "pause" - simply, this is unprecedented since the era of vast consumer/industrial CO2 emissions commenced.
In contrast, the earlier 190-month period ending February 1998 experienced an almost continuous climb of higher and higher temperature changes, culminating in the early 1998 peak.
This steady climb was supposedly the sole result of the growth of new CO2 emissions (this periods emissions actually averaged some 30% less than the subsequent 190-month period ending in 2013).
Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate "experts," and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.
And like so many experts in so many other science fields, the IPCC climate wonks were wrong, spectacularly. It now stands at 190 months of prediction failure!
Surprised? If yes, review previous of 'those-stubborn-facts' charts here and here.
Note: How calculations were done: For the 190 months ending December 2013 (left chart), the February 1998 anomaly was the base point. The anomaly difference from this base was calculated for each subsequent month. No calculated difference during the 190 months was greater than -0.0001. Similar difference calculations were made for the 190-month period ending February 1998 (see rightmost chart), with that period's base point being April 1982.
Download NOAA 2013 year-end global monthly dataset used for difference calculations and plots (NOAA changes all historical data points for each new month's dataset, so 'C3' will retain this 2013 dataset for the near future). CO2 emission dataset can be downloaded here. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.
The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.
As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don't even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart - an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)
The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious - how was the IPCC so wrong?
And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC's climate science orthodoxy.
Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, "consensus" climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling "experts" at NASA.
This chart depicts the famous global warming predictions made by NASA's chief climate scientist in 1988 at a hearing before the U.S. Senate.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.
Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.
Yet, despite the NASA "expertise" and the gigantic growth of human CO2 emissions, actual global temperatures over the past 25 years have closely matched Hansen's 'Scenario C', which he predicted would take place if CO2 emissions had been limited to year 2000 levels.....didn't happen.
Unexpectedly (i.e. not predicted), global temperatures flat-lined and CO2 emissions continued on their merry, amazing growth path, unabated.
Regarding climate reality, the lack of global warming was not a prediction that climate models were programmed to produce. The models do not rely on natural climate change or natural climate warming and cooling attributes. It is not in the models' software "DNA" because human climate experts really don't understand the chaotic nature of Earth's climate, nor comprehend the true power of nature.
World Extreme Temperature Map (click on to enlarge)
For several decades now, consensus climate experts predicted that human CO2 emissions would produce extreme climate change for the world, which would be an existential threat to civilization.
Experts spoke of boiling oceans and Venus-like atmospheres caused by humans use of fossil fuels. At the heart of these soon-to-be catastrophic climate disasters was runaway and tipping point warming - hotter and hotter temperatures that kept ratcheting up.
It didn't happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.
Corn Belt Temperatures & Map (click on each to enlarge)
It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.
As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.
The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)
If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.
Central England Temperatures (click images to enlarge)
Recent mainstream press articles, plus those on the blogosphere, indicate a growing concern for a soon-to-come global cooling period, that some are even referring to as a potential mini-ice age. This sudden turn of events is entirely counter to all the "expert" consensus and IPCC predictions that claimed runaway global warming was civilization's greatest threat.
The impetus for the new publicized fears of cooling comes from the indisputable empirical evidence that global warming is suffering a non-predicted 'hiatus' (i.e. warming is stalled, paused, stopped, etc.) these last 15+ years. Combine that pause with the additional empirical evidence of solar activity being at a minimum and major ocean oscillations being in non-warming phases and that combo spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
One region of the world that may already be experiencing the impacts of a global cooling phase is The Midlands of central England.
The above charts are plots of the Central England (CE) Temperature record. The left chart plots the annual dataset (light green) back to inception, 1659AD. The maroon curve is a simple 25-year average of the annual temperatures. The chart also includes a plot of a 25-year average of annual CO2 atmospheric levels.
Obviously, the CE region has had a high degree of climate temperature variability over the records 355 years, coupled with an observed warming trend generated with the rebounding from the depths of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Starting in the early 1700s, there are signs the warning rebound was beginning, but it wasn't until the late 1800's that one can discern a strong post-LIA warming trend that ushers in the modern era. This positive spike of temperatures was well before the huge CO2 consumer/industrial emissions of the late 20th century.
Actually, using the 25-year moving average curve, one can see 3 distinct periods of recovery from the LIA. By the end of 2013, the 25-year average appears to reach its peak - the "warmest" ever.
However, by zooming in on the last 25 years since 1988 a different story is told - a climate cooling story.
The chart on the right is a plot of CE temperatures since 1988 - yes, the same year that climate scientists warned us that we were at global warming's death door. The chart's red and grey curves are 3-year averages and a linear trend line has been added (dark green).
Clearly, as this plot of modern temperatures reveals, for 25 years the CE region has had a slight cooling trend. This trend would produce an overall cooling of +0.53°C by 2100AD, if it were to monotonously continue (it won't). Adding to the consensus "expert" woes, any observed relationship between temperatures and CO2 levels is non-existent, if not a negative correlation over the last 2.5 decades.
If huge emissions of CO2 are not driving temperature increases, then the apparent cooling must be a function of more powerful forces, such as described in this latest peer-reviewed study. With that said, all empirical evidence points to the fact that climate science remains unsettled and that the CO2-centric CAGW hypothesis is essentially without clothes.
Back in 1988 (that would be 25 years ago) NASA scientists predicted that global temperatures would increase by 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, within 30 years, if human CO2 fossil fuel use continued to increase by 1.5% per year.
Well....how's that expert NASA climate prediction working out for Americans?
L.O.L., big time.
During 1988 the average U.S. temperature was 52.6°F. And for 2013, 25 years later? The mean 2013 U.S. temp was 52.4°F.
Yep, you read that correctly. The 2013 temperature was below the 1988 temperature. Now, it's not quite 30 years yet, but it's obvious at the 25 year mark that the "experts" are spectacularly clueless when it comes to predicting climate and temperatures.
And what about that scary 'business-as-usual' global fossil fuel growth of 1.5% per year that the leading NASA climate scientist warned would cause temperatures to skyrocket? Ooops, annual global fossil fuel growth averaged 2.3% since 1988 through 2012 (click image below to enlarge).
Indeed, the chart at the top (click top chart to enlarge) indicates that the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels has been phenomenal since around 1950. And as the bright red trend curve depicts, U.S. temperatures have been increasing since 1895 - more so since the early 1980s to the late 1990s when U.S. temperature increases flattened, and then literally started to cool per NOAA's NCDC climate division.
Depending on which climate catastrophe du jour that "experts" were shouting, the U.S. was either going to face extreme droughts or biblical floods or both at the exact same time! Again, back to the top chart where at the bottom is the plot of U.S. precipitation since 1895.
Clearly, the huge increases in CO2 levels have not demonstrably changed long-term precipitation (see the unchanged bright green fitted trend curve). By 2100AD, maybe, just maybe, precipitation may increase by one-tenth of an inch.
One last point. The top chart shows that in any given year, the average American will experience a temperature swing of some 50 degrees, regardless of CO2 levels. Yet, Democrats and Hollywood celebrities are fixated on tiny predicted temperature warming, which recent empirical evidence, over the last 15+ years, suggests will be from hundredths of a degree increase to multiple tenths of a degree increase by 2100AD.
Are these pampered, wealthy, spoiled greens/liberals/progressive/leftist anti-CO2 fanatics overreacting, insane from imaginary climate calamity fears? Hmmm...it would seem most Americans think they are.
In this recent article, Bob Tisdale deconstructs the irrational and anti-science claims of a new global warming study produced by a couple of prominent climate reality deniers.
Parsing through Tisdale's analysis makes it clear that alarmists remain grasping at straws, while cherry-picking evidence that is easily refuted with updated empirical measurements.
As part of his analysis, he shows the adjacent chart comparing the state-of-the-art IPCC climate models versus climate reality. As observed, the computer simulations are not up to the task of accurately predicting global temperatures, whether being in the past or modern eras.
Essentially, as Tisdale notes, the CO2-centric models are failed prediction tools and actually contradict the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are a major factor in the modern era's past global warming, which, btw, stalled more than a decade ago.
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2-caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)...this style of sensationalist, tabloid "climate science" journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck-on-stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
The ultimate test for the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted "hotspot" that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming - newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the "hotspot" failed to materialize
Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.
This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.
The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.
If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.
Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist.
The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.
A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)
Conclusions from the chart:
#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.
#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.
#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.
#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).
#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).
#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.
#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.
#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.
Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:
"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary
condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper
tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as
compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It
is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs
are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent
model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming
represents an important problem..."
Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):
"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the
upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.
Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and
satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.
"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface
warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one
observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008
“Model results and observed temperature
trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being
separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In
layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007
Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:
"Section 126.96.36.199.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""
"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."
Note 1: A simple
hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm;
then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause
evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the
upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms
the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms
even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."
Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).
Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).
Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.
Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot
readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All
the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle
comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on,
the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
An analysis of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset reveals long-term changes in global warming as less than predicted by the AGW hypothesis - the UK empirical evidence (HatCRUT3) confirms that human CO2 is producing a minimal to trivial effect relative to the UN's IPCC climate change scenarios
The adjacent chart plots 30-year changes in HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset, which is considered the gold-standard by the IPCC and the world's scientists.
The chart's starting point is January 1880, which represents the first data point (pink circle) of a 30-year temperature change, from January 1850 to January 1880. The chart's last plot point (green circle) is the difference from December 1982 to December 2012.
The black curve is the simple 5-year average (60-month moving) of all the 30-year changes. And the light grey curve is the plot of monthly CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels from 1880 through 2012.
Per this gold-standard empirical evidence, one can safely conclude the following:
#1. CO2 levels have consistently increased, with short pauses, over this extended period.
#2. 30-year temperature changes peaked both in 1939 and 1998, and then subsequently declined indicating a more powerful-than-CO2, non-greenhouse gas influence at work.
#3. Higher CO2 levels are not causing runaway, accelerating, rapid, irreversible, dangerous and/or tipping point long-term global temperature changes, which is contrary to all conventional and "consensus" IPCC expert opinions and their climate models.
#4. The simple 5-year moving average curve during the very recent past indicates a declining period for 30-year changes, possibly signalling an extended cooling phase is upon us.
#5. The 30-year temperature changes, prior to the post-1960 consumer/industrial surge in human CO2 emissions, rival those of the modern up/down 30-year changes, in terms of amount, duration and speed.
#6. Long-term (30 year) global temperature change appears to follow an up and down pattern - an oscillation phenomenon, so to speak, that occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
#7. Since this oscillation is not being produced by higher CO2 levels, then some natural phenomenon is likely driving long-term global temperature change, overwhelming the apparent trivial impact of CO2.
There are any number of natural climate phenomena working singularly, or in concert, that are responsible for climate change. An example of one such natural pattern is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) that is adjacent and shown here.
As can be seen, the AMO pattern is curiously similar to the above 30-year global temperature change plot of peaks and valleys.
As NOAA scientists have established, this powerful, climate-changing oscillation has been identified in historical paleoclimate proxies, confirming that human CO2 has nothing to do with it.
And the AMO is just one of many natural climate forces. Another powerful, natural climate-change phenomena that dwarfs the global warming impact of human CO2 is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which is best explained by this expert.
The UK's HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset has been the IPCC's gold-standard for its political-agenda "science" reports - unfortunately for the IPCC, the HadCRUT dataset also confirms the disappearance of global warming, replaced by a very slight cooling trend
It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997.
Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened.
The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates.
As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated.
As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span.
This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here).
In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth.
The atmospheric humidity levels that NOAA researchers publish continue to trend lower than climate model predictions - however, the mythical runaway global warming that catastrophic global warming (CAGW) alarmists promulgate requires atmospheric humidity to increase
NASA's famous in-house climate quack rivals notorious doomsday cultists, such as Harold Camping and others - as the empirical evidence reveals, James Hansen's headline grabbing prediction of boiling oceans, from too much CO2, is from the theater of propaganda absurdity
James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)
Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).
Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?
It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.
The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.
None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).
To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.
Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.
There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.
The 2012 year-end satellite measurements continue to be cruel to the IPCC's green-sharia scientists - this UN agency has long predicted huge atmospheric global warming from CO2 emissions .....yet in reality, global cooling currently dominates
(click on images to enlarge)
The above chart is the plot (Figure 1) of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA (data sources).
Clearly, as CO2 levels have monotonously increased over the last 17-years (why 17?), global temperatures have not increased with any significance. By year 2100, this "warming" trend would produce a projected increase of one-third of a single degree - rather insignificant and hardly noticeable.
The UN's IPCC's catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which the vast majority of empirical-based scientists now reject, demands that ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to rapidly warm. This accelerated, man-made atmosphere warming would then significantly warm the globe's oceans and land surfaces, quickly making Earth inhospitable from incredibly high temperatures and horrific climate change disasters.
Contrary to the United Nation's "science" though, global temperatures have morphed over the last 30 years from a warming trend to a cooling trend despite the huge increase in CO2 levels.
This next set of temperature plots (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5) depict the global atmosphere temperatures and CO2 levels over four different time periods. These plots, plus the 17-year chart, formulate an empirical reality that refutes the UN's non-empirical CAGW hypothesis:
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the last 30 years
2. For all time periods, the average atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded the supposedly "safe" 350 parts-per-million (ppm)
3. As figure #2 shows, there is a modest global warming trend evident over 30 years
4. Figure #2 also reveals that most of the global warming took place prior to 1999
5. Since 2003 1993, the 20-year plot (figure #3) has a smaller warming trend - less than 1.0 degree by year 2100
6. The 15-year and 10-year charts (figures #4 and 5) have no warming trend, proving that a very slight atmospheric global cooling has dominated since the late 20th century
7. 2012 global temperatures are well below previous highs over the last 30 years.
8. The 17-year plot (figure #1), which is favored by some CAGW scientists, confirms that global atmospheric warming has been robustly insignificant, contrary to their own predictions
Conclusions: Per the actual satellite empirical evidence, global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling over the last 15 years despite the IPCC "consensus" predictions that global warming would have to be produced if CO2 levels exceeded the 350 ppm level. Global cooling has now dominated for a significantly extended period, which demonstrably proves that CO2 is not a "global thermostat" as claimed by many of the UN's green-sharia scientists. (Note: linear trend representations are not predictions.)
Likewise, claims that global warming is "rapid," "accelerating," "irrefutable," "unprecedented," "incontrovertible," and/or "irreversible" are outright known falsehoods.
Finally, any journalist, scientist, politician or bureaucrat using such terminology to describe global temperatures is an unequivocal liar - that is the simple, empirical truth.
The IPCC predicted that global warming would result from increased atmospheric CO2 levels - however, since the beginning of the 1997 Super El Nino, global cooling has been the result
(click on image to enlarge)
The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled - a total of 184 months. This cooling trend took place during a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
This slight cooling trend is opposite of what the IPCC (and NASA's James Hansen) predicted for global temperatures.
The IPCC prediction of rapid global warming is based on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions would increase atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels; the increase of greenhouse gases would allow more radiated heat to be retained; the retained heat would warm the atmosphere; and, the atmosphere would then warm the world's oceans and land surfaces. Such predicted warming would set in motion a "runaway tipping point" that would produce catastrophic climate disasters and a doomsday for civilization.
Instead, as the adjacent chart indicates, the lower atmosphere since 1997 (per the RSS satellite measurements) has actually been exhibiting a cooling trend, versus the the obvious warming trend for the January 1980 to April 1997 period (red curve on chart).
Like the RSS dataset, the HadCRUT global temperatures also exhibit almost the same warming/cooling dichotomy. What is very apparent in both datasets is that the '97-98 Super El Niño shifted temperatures up to a new level, which then global temperatures resumed their normal variation around. Subsequent to this temperature range shift, growing CO2 emissions have not caused the long predicted "global warming."
#1. Satellite measurements reveal both a modest global warming and very slight global cooling period since 1980.
#2. Levels of atmospheric CO2 appear to have no consistent influence on global temperatures since 1980.
#3. Global warming is not "irrefutable," "unequivocal," "rapidly increasing," "accelerating," "incontrovertible," "indisputable," "unquestionable" nor "unprecedented." It's quite the opposite of all these qualifiers.
#4. Any IPCC scientist, climate researcher, academic, government bureaucrat, journalist and pundit who states and/or implies that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth,' is, quite honestly, a serious liar. The empirical evidence is the scientific truth, not a person's blatant verbal misrepresentation.
#5. Politicians and celebrities who state and/or imply that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth' is at best, stuck-on-stupid. Unfortunately, that seems to be the dominating characteristic of individuals involved in the political, sports and entertainment worlds. (Although, with politicians it may not be the case of being stupid, instead it may be more of a case of being criminally corrupt in order to enrich himself via "green" projects - think Solyndra.)
#6. As the satellite data show, the hot summer in the U.S. was not a result of global warming (as suggested by many covered by points #5 and #6) since global atmospheric temperatures during May, June and July were not extreme nor unusual.
The recent evidence is overwhelming that climate models are completely ineffective at predicting global temperatures, and newer research confirms they have serious problems properly simulating major component/regions of the globe's environment
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. New research on the accuracy of climate models regarding the modeling of the Southern Ocean region reveals major issues.
The Weijer et al. team identified the following concerns:
"The nine researchers state that "the CCSM4 has varying degrees of accuracy in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Ocean when compared with observations," some of which we list as follows: (1) "the seasonally ice-covered regions are mildly colder (ΔSST > -2°C) than observations," (2) "sea ice extent is significantly larger than observed," (3) "north of the seasonal ice edge, there is a strong (-4°C < ΔSST < -1°C) cold bias in the entire Pacific sector south of 50°S and in the western Australian-Antarctic Basin," (4) "positive biases (1° < ΔSST < 4°C) are found in the Indian and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean," (5) "significant differences are found in the Indian and Pacific sectors north of the ACC, with the CCSM4 model being too cold (< -2°C) and fresh (<-0.3 psu)," (6) "AABW adjacent to the Antarctic continent is too dense," (7) "North Atlantic Deep Water is too salty (>0.2 psu)," (8) "in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, north of 50°S and below 3000 meters, the too-salty AABW penetrates northward, resulting in a denser-than-observed abyssal ocean in CCSM4," (9) "the model underestimates the depth of the deep winter mixed layers in the Indian and eastern Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean north of the ACC," (10) "in the southern Tasman Sea and along the eastern Indian Ocean boundary ... the model mixed layer depth is deeper than observed by more than 400 meters," (11) "in all sectors of the Southern Ocean, Model CFC-11 concentrations in the lower thermocline and intermediate waters are lower than observed," (12) "model CFC-11 concentrations in the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) are lower than observed in the basins adjacent to the Antarctic continent," (13) "model surface CFC-11 concentrations are higher than observed," (14) "the production of overflow waters in the Ross Sea is too low by about a factor of 2 relative to the limited observations," (15) "the depth at which the product water settles was also shown to be too shallow by about a factor of 2," (16) "the subtropical gyre of the South Atlantic is too strong by almost a factor of 2, associated with a strong bias in the wind stress," (17) the mean position of the BMC is too far south in the CCSM4," and (18) "the model variability in the position of the BMC is significantly less than observations."
[Wilbert Weijer, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Mathew E. Maltrud, Nicole Jeffery, Matthew W. Hecht, Corinne A. Hartin, Erik van Sebille, Ilana Wainer, Laura Landrum 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusions: The IPCC climate models can't simulate the reality of observed climate conditions. Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
The IPCC's climate doomsday scientists have been predicting that modern global warming would cause extreme climate change leading to an increase of severe weather events - new EU-Netherlands research proves the alarmists wrong
Read here. The Dutch are use to stormy weather and have a long history of recording such events. A researcher decided to investigate the records going back 101 years to determine if severe weather incidents had increased.
"In another blow to the alarmist fallacy that climate change is causing more extreme weather, a paper published today in the journal Climatic Change finds that windstorm damage in the Netherlands is presently the lowest over the entire 101 year period of study...The resulting windstorm loss time-series for the Netherlands contains some interesting features. Annual losses are stable over the whole period and have a dominant cycle with a period of about 50 years. The Netherlands is currently experiencing the minimum aggregate storm damage of the past 100 years, though only slightly lower than a quiet period of 50 years ago. Both of these minima are driven primarily by lowered rates of occurrence of damaging storms." [Stephen Cusack 2012: Climatic Change]
Conclusion: As this new peer reviewed study demonstrates, human CO2 emissions are not causing extreme climate change in the EU region of the Netherlands. Previous studies have also found severe weather incidents not increasing over the modern era, around the world.
The climate doomsday global warming science "facts" that the IPCC promulgates is built on the house-of-cards of computer simulations - professional analysis of the climate models continue to reveal them as being entirely worthless
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. At 'C3' we have written abundantly about climate models and their spectacular lack of success. The UN's IPCC, and climate research agencies, such as NASA, publish the results of these models as if they were the holy grail of future climate predictions.
Yet any layperson who even spends a modest amount of time reading about global warming and climate change quickly realizes that something is terribly amiss. The IPCC climate predictions appear to have no basis in reality - these predictions do not match the observed trends and conditions of global, regional and/or local climates.
Now recent research by scientists confirms what the average layperson perceived, that the climate models are essentially worthless.
"...a team of hydrologists...published a pair of studies comparing long-term (100-year) temperature and precipitation trends in a total of 55 locations around the world to model projections. The models performed quite poorly at the annual level...They also did no better over larger and larger regional scales. The authors concluded that there is no basis for the claim that climate models are well-suited for long-term predictions over large regions."
"A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative...The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”"
Conclusions: Per different statistical assessments comparing climate models versus climate reality, the climate models were found to be worthless if their success is measured by prediction accuracy. Inconveniently for the IPCC and NASA, those are the global warming science facts.
The EPA, the IPCC and the USGCRP bureaucrats have erroneously predicted, per their global climate models, that southwest U.S. would become drier with more droughts - the latest research finds that these predictions are result of climate modeling failure
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and multi-agency bureaucrats continue to produce erroneous assessments and misguided advice for policymakers based on global climate models. Computer models, and especially the global climate variety, have been a fountain of bogus predictions for years.
In a new study, experts documented another case of failed of global computer simulations that confirms why these hugely expensive 'big picture' models are pretty much worthless. Counter to the EPA and IPCC's predictions, the southwest USA is actually less likely to suffer from droughts, water shortages, forest fires, agriculture crop failure or insect infestations based on new research.
Why were the tax-payer sucking, big government agencies, soooo wrong? The global climate modelers forgot to tell the bureaucrats that the models did not include the impact of mountains on the climate and the bureaucrats were too stupid and/or lazy to ask - doh!
"A research team...[Gao et al.]...investigated that the differences between how large-scale global climate models and finer-scale regional climate models handled the characteristics of moisture flow in the atmosphere over the southwestern U.S...The regional climate models (RCMs) include much finer scale processes than are included in the global climate models (GCMs). In the Southwest, this includes a finer representation of the complex, mountainous terrain which plays a key role in the regional precipitation processes...compared how the RCMs handled the processes that lead to precipitation across the Southwest compared to how the processes were simulated in GCMs. They generally found that the better representation of the terrain by the RCMs allowed them to generate more future rainfall...result from Gao et al. showing that RCMs generated more future precipitation than GCMs in the Southwestern U.S...RCMs allowed them to better simulate the snow accumulation and ablation at high elevations and consequently “runoff in the Colorado River Basin is less susceptible to a warming climate in RCMs than in GCMs.”" [Yanhong Gao, L. Ruby Leung, Eric P. Salathé Jr., Francina Dominguez, Bart Nijssen, Dennis P. Lettenmaier 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: Global climate modeling failure is the rule rather than the exception in regards to the computer simulations that EPA & IPCC bureaucrats and policymakers rely on. New research regarding a regional climate in the U.S. substantiates the failed predictive capability of global climate models. As a result, these global climate models guarantee massive amounts of government investments being wasted on erroneous climate change impacts, such as more droughts in the southwest U.S..
It's another connect the dots moment - climate model failure is standard operating procedure for NASA's James Hansen as empirical evidence confirms his abysmal failure at global warming predictions
(click on images to enlarge)
This first chart establishes that the actual growth of CO2 emissions has not only continued as 'business as usual' since 1988, it in fact has exceeded the BAU growth rate handsomely during recent years.
This second chart plots the actual observed annual temperatures (NASA/GISS & HadCRUT) versus the climate model predictions of global warming made by James Hansen of NASA. Even to the casual observer, the abysmal failure of climate model predictions is staggering.
The green curve is the 'business as usual' NASA global warming prediction if 1988 levels of CO2 emission growth continued (Scenario 'A'). The green dots represent actual NASA annual global temperatures. The red dot is what Hansen predicted for 2011 temperatures - the gap between the green and red 2011 dots represent the huge prediction error.
The aqua curve represents Hansen's Scenario 'C' for global temperatures if the world had completely restricted CO2 emission growth by year 2000 - that never happened as CO2 growth went beyond BAU growth since 1988.
This third chart is a plot of the HadCRUT global temperatures over the last 15 years through March 2012. The HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC's 'gold standard.' Clearly, global temperatures over the last 180 months have not warmed as predicted by NASA's climate model (nor as predicted by any other "consensus" climate model). Huge global warming prediction errors will continue as long as computer models that are primarily based on levels of CO2 emissions are utilized.
Conclusion: Connect the dots climate model failure is not a 'roll of the dice' - it is a known, glaring global warming prediction bias that is significantly robust. Since this is a 'known known,' as a precautionary principle decision, James Hansen et al. should be retired from NASA's climate modeling research unit. Why?
When known failed climate scientist(s) begets known bad climate science that then leads to known bad economic and energy policies, then a humane precautionary principle is required to remove the failed scientist(s) prior to a tipping point of economic damage to society being reached. Or, in other words, fire the hysterical idiot - he's responsible for an incredible misallocation of science research resources since the 80's, and more recently, the incredibly crippling regulation/energy policies of the Obama administration.
Since Bill McKibben urges everyone to connect-the-dots, share the link to this 'C3' article with all your Facebook, Twitter, email and LinkedIn friends and contacts.
Read here. Who said an old dog (scientist) can't learn new tricks (or things)?
James Lovelock, the Gaia scientist, once proclaimed that humanity would soon end due to global warming from CO2. Yet over the last 15 years the lack of global warming has been significant and robust. And what did Lovelock do?
"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too...“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said."
As an objective scientist, he reviewed the actual empirical evidence and realized he had been wrong - catastrophic global warming was not happening and likely not to take place. The man has courage.
A real extreme climate change, so-to-speak, from a real scientist - accolades to James Lovelock, it's well deserved.
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.
Climate modeling failure remains a major embarrassment for the UN's IPPC's "climate science" efforts - this time their models failed at predicting the 'Siberian Highs' that dominate Northern Hemisphere weather
Read here. The 'Siberian High' (SH) is a major winter condition that drives much of the weather conditions throughout the Northern Hemisphere. It is a natural high pressure atmospheric climate phenomenon that varies from year to year, located principally across the Eurasian land mass.
The IPCC's climate modeling systems predicted that global warming would cause a significant reduction in the intensity of the SH. However, new peer reviewed research proves that the climate models were wrong - over the last two decades the SH intensity increased.
"In a study designed to determine to what degree the temporal SH intensity simulations of these models mimic reality, Jeong et al. employed two observational gridded sea level pressure (SLP) data sets...the seven scientists revealed "a pronounced declining trend of the SH intensity from the late 1960s to the early 1990s," which would appear to mesh well with GCM simulations presented in the IPCC AR4...However, they report that in the real world, the declining SH intensity trend "was sharply replaced by a fast recovery over the last two decades." And they thus make a strong point of noting that "this feature has not been successfully captured by the GCM simulations..."an improvement in predicting the future climate change in regional scale is desirable."" [Jee-Hoon Jeong, Tinghai Ou, Hans W. Linderholm, Baek-Min Kim, Seong-Joong Kim, Jong-Seong Kug, Deliang Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Conclusion: Climate modeling failure is the standard operating procedure for the immensely expensive virtual simulations that the IPCC and associated climate agencies have poured billions into. They remain unable to provide accurate predictions that policymakers can rely on.
The failed climate models of the IPCC and NASA have revealed the terminal weakness of the AGW hypothesis - but new research and models are coming online that better explain global warming and climate change
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here and here. The impressive success of the harmonic astronomical climate model (left chart) is in the realm of spectacular when compared to the robust, abysmal performance of the IPCC's (middle chart) and NASA's (right chart) traditional CO2-based climate models. The failure of the CO2-centric models is due in large part to their inability to reproduce the known decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that are part and parcel to the world's climate.
The significant failure of the IPCC / NASA climate models, and the AGW hypothesis they are derived from, is captured in its entire absurdity here. Literally, the avid proponents of the failed CO2-driven AGW hypothesis first admit to there being essentially zero warming over the last 10 years, and then try to rationalize the disappearance of warming with a diversity of speculations other than the obvious - that the current IPCC and NASA climate theory is bankrupt.
Below are excerpts that reveal the collective, "consensus" befuddlement of Climategate scientists towards global warming (or lack thereof):
John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Robert Kaufman, climate scientist: "...released a modeling study suggesting that the hiatus in warming could be due entirely to El Niño and increased sulfates from China’s coal burning."
Martin Wild, climate scientist: "During the 1980s and ’90s, the rapid decline of air pollution in the United States and Europe dominated the world’s aerosol trends. While those emissions have continued to decline in the West, returns, from a brightening standpoint, ...“It’s not an obvious overall trend anymore,”..."
Susan Solomon, climate scientist: "“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” ...Solomon had shown that between 2000 and 2009, the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere declined by about 10 percent. This decline, caused either by natural variability — perhaps related to El Niño — or as a [negative] feedback to climate change, likely countered 25 percent of the warming that would have been caused by rising greenhouse gases..."
Kenneth Trenberth, climate scientist: "Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,...they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down."
James Hansen, climate scientist: "All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses....that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,...“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ....it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed."
Graeme Stephens, climate scientist: "It suggests there isn’t a missing energy. Trenberth disagrees with this analysis, and it’s likely to be a question of ongoing debate."
Judith Lean, climate scientist: "The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star...Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” According to Lean, the combination of multiple La Niñas and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that’s needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases."
Ben Santer, climate scientist: “All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming,”..."The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things. You can’t do that without systematic modeling and experimentation. I would hope someone will do that.”...“Even if you have the hypothetical perfect model, if you leave out the wrong forcings, you will get the wrong answer.”
John Daniel, climate scientist: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
Conclusion: The failed climate models (that "scientists" from the IPCC and NASA livelihoods are dependent on) are based on a discredited CO2 hypothesis that is unable to explain the global climate's fluctuations. Newer models based on natural causations, be they of cosmic and/or earthly origin, are better able to explain global climate change, including decadal and multi-decadal temperature variation.
An empirical analysis of the latest CRUTEM4 dataset reveals that climate modeling, as used by the IPCC and other climate research agencies, have predictive capabilities measured as being worthless
(click image to enlarge) Read here. Bob Tisdale examines the new CRUTEM4 dataset (part of the new HadCRUT4 dataset) versus the predictions of the IPCC's climate modeling "science." As previous analyses have established, the major climate research climate models are incapable of providing accurate (or even adequate) predictions of future climate conditions.
Why is climate modeling worthless as a prediction tool?
There are multiple reasons, but in a nutshell:
1. Climate modelers, not being evidence-based scientists, constructed models per the IPCC politicized CO2-based agenda
2. Climate modelers, per the above #1 reason, constructed models to minimize the influence of natural climate oscillations and cycles
3. Climate modelers constantly tweak their models with numerous "adjustments" to force models to match observed temperature behavior over more recent decades
4. When, climate modelers perform their "tweaks" for modern era temperatures, the climate models are no longer able to accurately predict ('hindcast') past temperature behavior
5. If climate models were "adjusted" to perform better past temperature hindcasting, then the climate models would fail to match recent temperature behavior (it's the nature of the climate modle beast).
As the adjacent charts from Bob Tisdale's analysis shows, the state-of-the-art IPCC climate model predictions (red curves/lines) fail completely to match the observed historical dataset (blue curves/lines).
"...compares the models to the global CRUTEM4 data during the early warming period of 1917 to 1938. The observed rate at which global land surface temperatures warmed is almost 5 times faster than simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. 5 times faster....According to the CMIP3 multi-model mean, land surface temperatures should have warmed at a rate of 0.043 deg C per decade from 1938 to 1976, but according to the CRUTEM4 data, global land surface temperature anomalies cooled at a rate of -0.05 deg C per decade..."
Conclusion: After billions of dollars expended on climate modeling (and the ungodly huge amount of wasted science man-hours), the latest evidence sadly confirms that IPCC climate models' predictions remain worthless.
To get an idea of the immense expenditures of money and time spent on climate modelers play toys, watch this NASA video:
Skeptics' views regarding catastrophic global warming have been proven correct - experts now believe that climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels
Read here. Climate skeptics (luke warmers and others) have long contended that the supercomputer climate models used by the IPCC and NASA have significantly overestimated the potential global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The majority of skeptics believe that any warming due to increased CO2 emissions will result in temperature increases of 2°C or less by year 2100. Recently, new peer reviewed studies by the experts have been published that reveals a new consensus being reached that confirms the skeptics' point of view: catastrophic global warming isn't in the cards.
New research on current climate models
"A collection of research results have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity"..."there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less)."..."Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming..."For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K..."
Conclusion: The alarmist predictions of catastrophic global warming have been incorrectly based on the exaggerated climate sensitivity programmed into the climate models of major climate research agencies, including those that the IPCC relies on.
AGW alarmist climate scientists predicted that increasing human CO2 emissions would cause an increase in water vapor with the result being a global warming tipping point - empirical evidence completely discredits that prediction
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. Very simply, for the IPCC's climate models predicted runway global warming to happen, there has to be a positive feedback from atmospheric CO2 that pushes the climate to a "tipping point." The positive feedback in the IPCC's computer models is an ever increasing atmospheric water vapor level (greenhouse gas) due to rising temperatures from CO2.
In the real world though, that positive feedback has not happened, as the adjacent chart of relative humidity (atmospheric water vapor) and global temperatures shows. And now, a new peer reviewed study in the prestigious Journal of Climate is confirming that the global warming tipping point hypothesis is without any empirical merit.
"A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusion: The IPCC alarmist global warming tipping point does not exist over the long term - instead, over periods less than a decade, the climate will likely return to an equilibrium position due to built-in negative feedbacks.
The catastrophic prediction that the world's major glaciers, including those of the Himalayas, were melting to nothingness turns out to be spectacularly wrong - global warming scientists & MSM press literally stunned by real world facts
Read here and here. During a week where honest scientists and the gullible mainstream press were again whacked in the head by the infamous 2x4 of global warming alarmist corruption, new research based on empirical evidence continues to reveal that the IPCC's alarmist predictions are bogus, if not terminally corrupt.
New satellite evidence shows that the Himalayan glaciers have lost zero ice for the last 10 years, which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Federation and U.S. climate scientists have predicted, and claimed to actually be happening.
As one of the world's major 'Big Green' propaganda alarmist tools, the UK's Guardian had to be stunned itself to write this about the Himalayan glaciers and the related 'stunned' climate scientists.
"The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows"..."The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas...have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows...The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
As the sordid fakery and fabrications of a major global warming alarmist scientist, Peter Gleick, continues to embarrassingly unravel, the mainstream press also has to cope with real world climate facts - the world is not dangerously warming and causing all the exaggerated global warming catastrophes they previously reported (predicted).
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]
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]
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
Ben Santer & James Hansen have long been declaring that global warming was accelerating from human CO2 - instead, the real facts reveals their incompetence
Santer and Hansen are two climate modelers that have been spectacularly wrong for so long that it's even painful for skeptics to witness. These two have been cluck-clucking forever about how CO2 levels were causing accelerating and irreversible global warming, with some climate "disruption" thrown in to scare the politicians and policymakers.
However, as the actual empirical evidence through November 2011 reveals, it is highly unlikely that either of these "scientists" could find his own ass with his hands. Even using Santer's own preferred 17-year analysis span (chart on left), it is clear that global warming is insignificant and likely moving towards a cooling phase.
The chart on right shows the climate model abomination that NASA and Hansen base their predictions on. The level of climate science incompetence is mind-boggling. (click on images to enlarge)
The only things Santer and Hansen have managed to succeed at is enrichingthemselves, at the expense of science and the taxpayers.
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]
Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail...empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.
Read here. The world's science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN's IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.
The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC's "consensus" climate science:
"...with regard to the IPCC claim that "the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming," they note the following four problems:
(1) "it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,"
(2) "over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration," since "for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,"
(3) "there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature," and
(4) "the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere." [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Unfortunately, the establishmentapparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.
Read here. As scientific study after study has determined, climate models have about zero skill in predicting future climate scenarios. These computer simulations suffer from many shortcomings that automatically prevent them from predicting accurate global warming (or cooling) and associated climate change characteristics.
Even the most incompetent of the Climategate scientists, Kevin ("it's a travesty") Trenberth admits the following about the stupendously expensive climate models:
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models...Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
Obviously, the "experts" concur with the laypersons' conclusion: models are worthless regarding future climate predictions. But can climate models at least accurately predict the past (hindcasts), though? Nope.
Bob Tisdale did some extreme number crunching and found that the climate models can't even accurately hindcast the past despite knowing what exactly happened with the past climate.
Soooo, what did he find when he compared the real data of the past versus the simulated past data?
The simulated climate model average determined NINO3 sea area temperatures must have increased at a rate of 10.4C degrees per century.
And what was reality?
NINO3 sea temperatures actually increased at a per century rate of 0.7C degrees.
Summary: Policymakers should completely ignore any scientists who rely on climate models as a basis for future global warming or climate change predictions.
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected." JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”. JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.” JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.” JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.