Read here. Much to the consternation of the habitual deceivers of the IPCC paleo-climate scientist community, new research keeps piling up confirming the global extent of the Medieval Warming, and its unprecedented, huge climate-change impact. Adding insult to injury to the warming alarmists, the Medieval Global Warming was beneficial by ending the severe weather events that had led to the massive floods during the colder periods.
""In an attempt to determine the environmental origins of extreme flooding events throughout the southwestern United States, according to the author, "paleoflood records from nineteen rivers in Arizona and southern Utah, including over 150 radiocarbon dates and evidence of over 250 flood deposits, were combined to identify regional variations in the frequency of extreme floods," .....The frequency of extreme floods also increased during the early and middle portions of the first millennium AD, many of which coincided "with glacial advances and cool, moist conditions both in the western U.S. and globally." Then came a "sharp drop in the frequency of large floods in the southwest from AD 1100-1300," which corresponded, in her words, "to the widespread Medieval Warm Period, which was first noted in European historical records." With the advent of the Little Ice Age, however, there was another "substantial jump in the number of floods in the southwestern U.S.," which was "associated with a switch to glacial advances, high lake levels, and cooler, wetter conditions.""
Read here. In previous postings (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) we pointed to several indicators that the world is likely to be entering a global cooling phase. This image from Watts Up With That provides additional evidence of the power of this La Niña's cooling.
Read here. Scientists from Germany and Russia conducted extensive research and reconstructed past temperatures from tree rings. Using tree samples of Scots pine in the Khibiny Low Mountains of the Kola Peninsula in Arctic Russia, they found the following:
"The reconstructed summer temperature on Kola in the months of July and August has varied between 10.4°C (1709) and [peaking at] 14.7°C (1957), with a mean of 12.2°C. Afterwards, after a cooling phase, an ongoing warming can be observed from 1990 onwards.....The temperature fluctuated between 10.4°C and a peak of 14.7°C in 1957 , and then cooled until 1990. The scientists say it correlated very well with solar activity until 1990.....What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age.....The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees......What is conspicuous about the new data is that the reconstructed minimum temperatures coincide exactly with times of low solar activity. The researchers therefore assume that in the past, solar activity was a significant factor contributing to summer temperature fluctuations in the Arctic."
The above scientific evidence reveals little, if any, correlation between growth of human CO2 emissions and Arctic temperatures. The scientists conclude that there was a past relationship between solar activity and temperatures.
During the 1990's, the scientists find that warming resumes in the Arctic. And what was solar activity like during the 90's and later? Well solar activity increased, as documented in this Watts Up With Thatarticle. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.
"The authors' data indicate that "the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr." There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning "at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.".....authors say that the pattern they observed "is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.".....authors also report that "during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally," and they suggest that "changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region." They further state that their explanation is appealing "because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO)," such as during Little Ice Age conditions"
Read here. Basic common sense suggests solar influences are driving all climate change instead of a minuscule trace gas such as CO2. In a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded peer-reviewed study of Chinese lake sediment cores, researchers find climate change cycles strongly associated with solar output oscillations.
"The authors find “The carbonate percentage and ostracode abundance show a consistent pattern with ~200 year moisture oscillations during the last 1000 years.” The variations appear to be related to periodicities of solar output – Zhao et al. conclude “Higher solar output corresponds to a stronger monsoon, which intensifies the uplift of air mass on the high Tibetan Plateau and strengthens the subsidence of air mass over the QB. The reverse is true during the period of lower solar output. Thus, high solar activity is correlated with dry climate in QB and increased precipitation in monsoonal areas.”.....As was the case in the first article, the 200 year quasi “cycle” is again linked to a similar cycle in solar activity. Zhao et al. speculate that “The ~200-yr time spacing between wet and dry climate periods indicated by the A/C ratio variations suggests a possible solar forcing of effective moisture changes in the region.” The authors also note that the basin was especially dry “around AD 1600 during the first few centuries of the Little Ice Age”. So much for any argument that the Little Ice Age was somehow confined to Europe....."
Read here. Climate alarmists are fond of claiming that global warming causes an increase in storm frequency and intensity. There is not much, if any, actual empirical evidence backing up these claims, unless one believes speculative IPCC climate model predictions. What does the actual data say?
Recently, peer-reviewed research out of the New Zealand region confirms that modern warming itself has not generated an increase in storminess or raised storm's severity. In fact, the researchers found over the last 7,000+ years that increases in frequency/severity are usually associated with cooling periods, not warming.
"Working with sediment cores extracted from Lake Tutira on the eastern North Island of New Zealand, Page et al. developed a 7200-year history of the frequency and magnitude of storm activity.....they say that over the course of their record, "there are 25 periods with an increased frequency of large storms," the onset and cessation of which stormy periods "was usually abrupt, occurring on an inter-annual to decadal scale." They also note that the duration of these stormy periods "ranged mainly from several decades to a century," .....while "intervals between stormy periods range from about thirty years to a century." In addition, they find that millennial-scale cooling periods tend to "coincide with periods of increased storminess in the Tutira record, while warmer events match less stormy periods.".....as is demonstrated by the results of their work in the real world, the sudden occurrence of a string of years -- or even decades -- of unusually large storms is something that can happen at almost any time on its own, or at least without the necessity of being driven by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."
Read here. As common sense science would surmise, the Antarctic region follows a natural cycle of cooling and warming. As the scientists have now found, new peer-research confirms these type of dominant Antarctic warming/cooling cycles - and human CO2 emissions are found not to be the relevant driving force.
"Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change—change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years.....ice in the Antarctic region undergoes periodic episodes of rapid melting—and it is all entirely natural, not because of human activity. The new paper echos these findings: “Paleo-records show that analogous climate variations have occurred in the past 200 to 300 years, and over longer 2500-year cycles, with rapid (decadal) transitions between warm and cool phases in the WAP."....."Their conclusion was that “variability of these parameters demonstrates the significance of both short-term cycles, which recur approximately every 200 yr, and longer term events (~2500 yr cycles) that are most likely related to global climatic fluctuations.”"
Read here. The long and wide acceptance of the oceans' conveyor belt theory was, until recently, a confirmed scientific consensus. The conveyor belt theory was also a foundational cornerstone of all climate models. But, as oceanographers did more research and scrutinized the empirical evidence, they determined the popular, consensus conveyor belt theory was no longer sustainable, nor valid.
Where's that leave the IPCC's climate models then? Up a certain creek, without the proverbial paddle.
"Here is a list of recent discoveries that have shaken the foundation of the conveyor belt theory.
Most of the subpolar-to-subtropical exchange in the North Atlantic occurs along interior pathways.
The deep deep western boundary current (DWBC) breaks up into eddies at 11°S.
There is little meridional coherence in the overturning transport from one gyre to the next.
Wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning.
The southward transport of deep waters at 8°S, off the Brazilian coast, was shown to be carried entirely by migrating coherent eddies.
Floats launched within the DWBC at 53°N do not follow a continuous boundary current, but instead take multiple paths to the subtropics, including interior pathways far removed from the DWBC.
Two recent studies have found unexpected pathways in the upper ocean.
A recent study shows that MOC transport in the subtropical North Atlantic is susceptible to variability in the "leakage" of warm and salty water into the South Atlantic.
Studies showing little to no coherence across gyre boundaries have prompted interest in monitoring the overturning circulation in the South Atlantic and the subpolar North Atlantic.
The connectivity of the overturning and, more importantly, of the meridional heat transport from one basin to the next can no longer be assumed on interannual time scales.
When all of these observations are combined, they indicate that the conventional conceptual model of ocean overturning needs revamping....."As the study of the modern ocean’s role in climate continues apace, the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well— not because it is a gross oversimplification but because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning."....."I repeat my earlier assertion: if the conveyor belt model is wrong then
none of the IPCC's model results can be taken seriously.""
Read here and here. In an effort to rally the MSM propaganda troops around the "global warming" flag, Al Gore, James Hansen of NASA, and the scientists at NOAA/NCDC have now chosen to utilize absurdly short-term changes in temperature as a sure sign that recent warming is "out-of-control." The implication of their hyped claims being that the recent warming burst is due to human CO2 emissions and, of course, it is unprecedented and exceptional.
As for the recent burst in warming being due to CO2, that is a false implication since it is well known that recent surface and atmospheric warming has primarily been driven by the existing El Niño conditions:
"Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, adds what is missing from the article mentioned earlier: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”"
Although today's temperatures are absolutely not unprecedented versus historical temps, when compared to the short history of thermometer readings maintained by the NCDC, today's temperatures are indeed some of the warmest recorded since 1880. But in reality, that's totally expected since global temperatures have been on the rebound (increasing) since the Little Ice Age (LIA). So far, the NCDC thermometer records show temperatures increasing at a +0.7°C rate per century over the last 130 years.
What's the LIA mean for absurdly short-term temperature changes? Simply put, the natural Little Ice Age warming rebound is naturally going to cause some days, some weeks, some months, some calendar quarters, and some other short-term periods to be the "warmest" - it's unavoidably natural.
So, if the recent January to May short-term period is the "warmest" ever because of a combination of natural forces, the El Niño and the LIA Rebound, how then does this period's temperature change compare to previous January to May periods? When reviewed in the different context of per cent change terms, the 2010 January-May temperature change turns out to be rather unexceptional. (click on image to enlarge)
Every year, the January through May time period sees a global temperature increase from the past December levels. This chart reveals how large those temperature increases have been in the past. In terms of temperature percentage change, the most recent January through May temperature change was rather modest. As can be seen, this specific five-month time period is experiencing a downward trend in per cent change increase over time, especially since the 1920-30's era.
Read here. In a recent post examining global temperatures, we provided temperature charts that clearly indicated the recent global cooling. Scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals are also document this cooling and speculate as to the causes.
"Perlwitz et al. begin their narrative by noting that there has been "a decade-long decline (1998-2007) in globally averaged temperatures from the record heat of 1998," citing Easterling and Wehner (2009). And in further describing this phenomenon, they say that U.S. temperatures in 2008 "not only declined from near-record warmth of prior years, but were in fact colder than the official 30-year reference climatology (-0.2°C versus the 1971-2000 mean) and further were the coldest since at least 1996.....With respect to the geographical origin of this "natural cooling," as they describe it, the five researchers point to "a widespread coolness of the tropical-wide oceans and the northeastern Pacific," focusing on the Niño 4 region, where they report that "anomalies of about -1.1°C suggest a condition colder than any in the instrumental record since 1871".....With respect to the geographical origin of this "natural cooling," as they describe it, the five researchers point to "a widespread coolness of the tropical-wide oceans and the northeastern Pacific,""
Read here. Temperature data sets have been so heavily manipulated across the globe that it's difficult to make sense of what is the truth regarding temperatures. Another example of this incredible data buffoonery (fraud?) was found in a metro area of Australia.
"That’s the huge missing link for me in all of the groups who are working with the temperature data, whether they are Australian, US, English, or whatever. They don’t seem to do any quality control, even the most simple “does this result seem right” kind of tests.....It is astonishing to me that at this point in the study of the climate, we still do not have a single agreed upon set of temperature data to work from.....And folks claim that there is a “consensus” about the science? Man, we don’t have “consensus” about the data itself, much less what it means."
Read here. As the temperature chart on the left reveals (click on image to enlarge), sea surface temperatures have generally been declining around the Pine Island Glacier over the last 30 years. This evidence is in contrast to global warming alarmista claims that Antarctic glaciers have been shrinking due to CO2-induced warming. Now, real-working scientists have discovered a different cause of the shrinking glacier that has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.
“The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate change or is a continuation of a longer-term process that began when the glacier disconnected from the ridge.....“We do not know what kick-started the initial retreat from the ridge, but we do know that it started some time prior to 1970. Since detailed observations of Pine Island Glacier only began in the 1990s, we now need to use other techniques such as ice core analysis and computer modelling to look much further into the glacier’s history in order to understand if what we see now is part of a long term trend of ice sheet contraction."
Read here. Map
Why do we say "huge" for the post-Roman period? Climate alarmistas are in
an existential panic about a global temperature change of 0.7°C since
1880, per the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) data. A fair amount of that
increase in temperatures since 1880 is natural versus the small AGW
increase since 1970; and, the total 0.7 temperature change is significantly less
than the post-Roman 2.0 degree change - 2.0 is huge versus 0.7.
The historical evidence
points to past periods experiencing much greater temperature variation
and associated climate change, and the South China Sea is yet another
Sr/Ca ratios of two Porites corals from the coast of Leizhou
Peninsula in the northern South China Sea were measured.....From the
Dark Ages Cold Period portion of the coral record, Wei et al. determined
that the average annual SST was approximately 2.0°C colder than that of
the last decade of the 20th century (1989-2000), while from the Roman
Warm Period portion of the record they obtained a mean annual
temperature that was identical to that of the 1989-2000 period as
measured at the Haikou Meteorological Station.....As has been
demonstrated many times before in a number of places throughout the
world, these data indicate that the last decade of the 20th century did
not display unusual or unprecedented warmth. Indeed, there were prior
times within both the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period when
temperatures were equally as warm as, or actually warmer than, what
they have been recently; and all of these earlier warm periods occurred
at times when the air's CO2 concentration was fully 100 ppm less than
what it is today"
Read here. An exceptionally irritating and false assertion from the IPCC and climate alarmists is the one regarding species extinctions by the thousands, and more surely to come, all due to global warming. The classical example of this biased assertion is that the tropical Costa Rican toad's extinction was due to AGW. Unfortunately for the warming hystericals, recent actual science proved global warming innocent of the deaths.
A new group of researchers have revisited the dead toads' story, and again their new research finds that "global warming" is not the culprit. It's just more evidence that global warming alarmistas are totally 'clue'-less.
"Anchukaitis and Evans say their analysis suggests that "the cause of the specific and well-documented extinction of the Monteverde golden toad was the combination of the abnormally strong ENSO-forced dryness and the lethality of the introduced chytrid fungus, but was not directly mediated by anthropogenic temperature trends.....The two researchers report that "contrary to interpretations of the short instrumental record, no long-term trend in dry season hydroclimatology can be inferred from our δ18O time series at Monteverde." Instead, they find that "variability at the interannual scale dominates the isotope signal, particularly during the period of increased ENSO variance since the late 1960s," and they add, in this regard, that "there is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming." Hence, they emphasize that "the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986-1987 El Niño event," which they describe as "one of the longest driest periods in the last 100 years," based on their δ18O chronology. In addition, they report there is currently no consensus on how anthropogenic climate change might influence the El Niño Southern Oscillation, while indicating that "ENSO anomalies in the most recent decades are not beyond the range of natural variability during the instrumental period"
Read here. Scientists using the latest analysis techniques, conducted a high resolution analysis of the ice core retrieved from Antarctica's Dome C station. The Dome C is located on the eastern half of Antarctica, on the polar plateau with an elevation of 10,607 feet. (The more well-known Vostok polar station is located on the same plateau at a similar elevation, ~ 3,200 meters.)
What did this new high resolution analysis determine?
The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
The Minoan Warming period had temperatures that possibly exceeded current temperatures by 1°C, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
The previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago, had temperatures in excess of 4°C versus current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels.
Clearly, the new ice core data indicates that natural climate variations caused huge temperature variations in the past. Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces (see this chart and post also), not human CO2 trace gas emissions. (click on image to enlarge)
This high resolution ice core data ends at the year 1912. The similarly situated Vostok polar station temperature record was used as proxy to assess polar plateau temperature increase/decrease over the last 60 years. As the Vostok temperature data reveals, current temperatures may actually be lower than what the Antarctica plateau experienced during the 1950's. In addition, peer-reviewed studies indicate Antarctica temperature change to be minimal over last two centuries.
Download this newest Dome C ice core research, source here.
Let's say you're a climate scientist whose livelihood depends on government funding for global warming. What would you do to assure the global warming funding continues, so that you attain a secure future, financially and emotionally, in your chosen climate science field?
Well, if you wanted to convince U.S. senators to keep the monies flowing towards global warming research, one needs to do the following:
1. Convince the senators the global warming is unprecedented 2. Convince the senators that global warming is accelerating 3. Convince the senators that recent years are the warmest, evaaar.
How to do so? Amazingly, it's not been so hard to accomplish. Just adjust the actual temperature data to reflect "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming, and the "warmest" result just tags along. Then use this "improved" temperature data in presentations to convince the senators to deliver more money.
Are U.S. climate scientists actually this self-centered, sleazy and desperate to keep the monies flowing? Yep. And here's their most recent record of temperature data manipulation since 2008 - if you need global warming, just go back in time and fabricate it (some would call this data fraud, science malfeasance or hey, just flat-out lying). What's scary is that a lot of Democrats (progressives/liberal/leftists) condone and encourage this obvious "science" scam.
(click on image to enlarge)
By aggressively adjusting temperatures down prior to 1930's and by aggressively adjusting post-1930 temperatures up, the climate scientists are able to spoof the global warming trifecta: "unprecedented," "accelerating," and "warmest."
The AGW hypothesis states that human CO2 emissions will cause the world
to warm, with the the globe's polar areas being especially vulnerable to
rapid warming, due to CO2. The evidence from the last 1,000 years plus does not support the hypothesis.
Previously, we examined the data from Antarctica. Now we look at the actual Arctic area data (see chart below) and find that like the Antarctic, the northern polar regions have temperature swings unrelated to the CO2 levels. From peak to valley, Arctic temperatures changed more than 1.6 degrees Celsius while CO2 levels remained fairly stable. (click on image to enlarge)
Despite the alarmist claims of polar regions melting due to CO2-induced warming, there is no evidence to support that claim, either historically or currently. In fact, the highest temperatures reached over the last 1,000+ years were during the Medieval Period (about 1,000 years before present) when CO2 levels were close to being their lowest, based on the ice core data.
Temperature data is from the Greenland GISP II ice core, which ends in year 1905. CO2 levels are from the same dataset used in the previous Antarctica graph.
Read here. It's been well documented that urban areas experience much higher temperatures than rural areas. Since most of the climate network's global thermometers are located in urban/airport areas, the major temperature datasets include a significant urban heat bias that has not been properly corrected for. An example of this UHI phenomenon is the research data produced from the Mexicali City urban area.
"Garcia Cueto et al. state that Mexicali City "changed from being a cold island (1960-1980) to a heat island....from the "more updated information (2000-2005)," they found that "the greatest intensity of the urban heat island was in winter with a value of 5.7°C, and the lowest intensity in autumn with 5.0°C [editor's note: 9.0°F].""...."The results of this study clearly demonstrate that population growth and the clustering of people in cities can lead to localized warming (in areas where temperatures are routinely measured) that is both more rapid and much greater (by as much as an order of magnitude, in fact) than what climate alarmists typically attempt to characterize as the "unprecedented" warming of the 20th century. And that population-growth-induced warming -- spread across the world -- has likely contributed, in large part, to what they wrongly construe to be CO2-induced global warming."
Read here. Scientists determine that CO2 had nothing to do with the "faint sun" paradox and global warming. Climate alarmist scientists contended that CO2 and other greenhouse gases kept Earth warm when Sun was not as energetic as today. Latest peer-reviewed research demolishes that hypothesis, and as we often learn about any GHG hypothesis, another-one-bites-the-dust:
Read here. Often climate alarmists will point to warming ocean temperatures, or sea ice melting, and actually conclude that these conditions are caused by human CO2. Although there is no scientific evidence that even remotely suggests CO2 causes ice to melt or oceans to warm, that does not dissuade alarmists from spreading the bogus claims to the gullible MSM.
Real scientists are actually investigating the observed ocean temperature cycles across the world, and in the Arctic areas at least, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as the culprit. (click image to enlarge)
"We present area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m
depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006. This record is
dominated by multidecadal variability on the order of 4C which is
correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index."...."The hint in the conclusion (which the authors stop short of defining)
is that the pattern of data, seen below, might be linked to the recent
pattern of Arctic sea ice melt and some partial recovery seen in the
last two years."
Read here. The Urban Heat Island effect is known to cause significant warming in temperature datasets. Yet leading IPCC climate scientists never seem able to find it - always just beyond their grasp, or is it their comprehension, as a source of warming. Instead, it's been much more rewarding and convenient to rely on CO2-caused rationale for warming trends. Climategate's Phil Jones was a leading practitioner of missing the obvious UHI effect, as was shown also in his South African research on temperatures.
"Hughes and Balling report that the mean annual air temperature trend of the five large cities averaged 0.24°C per decade, while the mean warming rate of the 19 non-urban centers was a statistically insignificant 0.09°C per decade over the 1960-1990 period, which values are to be compared to the overall warming rate of 0.31°C per decade that was derived by Jones for the entire country....suggest that urbanization has influenced the Jones (1994) records for South Africa over the 1960-1990 period of apparent rapid warming....and that their analyses suggest that "half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase."
Read here. It's pretty obvious to most that the CO2-based AGW hypothesis is without legs and close to total collapse, much like past "consensus" science fiascoes.
"GW theory is dead and I am not talking about politics here. A
research institute is likely to let the wheels come off the wagon, at
last....Eventually, climate science will replace it with a new theory
combining solar, orographic and hydrodynamical studies. The greenhouse
effect will not be repudiated, rather downsized to a more appropriate
status. When? Not before a lot of effort will come to nothing, and
plenty of people will be killed, let to die or forced into poverty for
no reason at all."
The frightening prospect is that the global warming grant-funded scientists and institutions will continue to prop up this stumbling, beaten global-warming idiot, thus causing even more delay in addressing the real climate change problems and important environmental issues.
Read here. Western governments have been battling real air pollution for decades with much success. So, when they decided to pour billions into climate research and climate models, they for some reason chose not to focus on the impact of aerosol pollution (e.g. black soot). Per new research out of NASA, that decision was dumb - aerosols chemically react with greenhouse gases causing even more warming but climate models are oblivious to that science fact.
"The IPCC's modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used
for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model
results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has
caused climate scientists' assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol
particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in
previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to
the climate catastrophists' computer generated apocalyptic fantasies....This would imply that if aerosols—black carbon in particular—were
reduced we should see global cooling. And this is using the IPCC values
for CO2 sensitivity. So much for the potency of CO2 as the major driver of climate change."
Read here, here, here, here and here. The wide variety of Climategate scandals that have been exposed since November 2009 should make any reasonable politician want to tread very carefully when it comes to the "global warming" fiasco. Indeed, for politicians, the IPCC has become a scandalous joke in serious need of adult supervision, with a total remake.
But it's also important for politicians to remember that the AGW hypothesis and CO2-based climate models, which UN bureaucrats love, represents a science that cannot withstand, nor tolerate the scrutiny that actual empirical evidence affords. It is literally non-sustainable science that actual science facts can't confirm. It's pseudo science, primarily driven by unfortunate UN corruption, malfeasance and politics.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in
the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author
of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There
appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature
and carbon are linked in climate models.”
Or, "Another new estimate of the overall feedback between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 proxy records spanning the past 1000 years. The study in Nature, by David Frank et al.,
was based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons over the period
from 1050 to 1800. Their results imply that the amplification of
current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly
less than commonly suggested. This report goes so far as to suggest
~80% less potential amplification for ongoing global warming."
Or, "A new study authored by Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the NOAA could explain why atmospheric carbon is not contributing to warming significantly....Water vapor helps trap heat, and is a far the strongest of the major greenhouse gases, contributing 36–72 percent of the greenhouse effect. However more atmospheric carbon has actually decreased water vapor levels. Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate."
Or,"this demonstrates is that after known, natural modes of climate
variability are taken into account, the primary period of supposed
CO2-induced warming during the 20th Century – that from about 1970
onward – does not need as strong a CO2-warming effect as is programmed
into the average IPCC climate model. This is because the natural
variability seen BEFORE 1970 suggests that part of the warming AFTER
1970 is natural!"
Or, "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary [IPCC AR4]. The
presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists
and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily
with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation
or basis in fact....Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document
that would merit solid backing from the climate science community -
instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with
greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear
and obvious political agenda."
Read here. More often than not, we think of El Niño (or La Niña) events as contemporary climatic conditions. But researchers have determined that the ENSO climate behaviors were also important in climate history, on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.
[It should be remembered that climate models are incapable of correctly predicting these events despite their massive influence on the world's climate. After spending $79 billion on climate research that's a pretty sad statement.]
"The nine researchers conclude that "the finding of similar century-scale variability in climate archives from two El Niño-sensitive regions on opposite sides of the tropical Pacific strongly suggests that they are dominated by the low-frequency variability of ENSO-related changes in the mean state of the surface ocean in [the] equatorial Pacific." And that "century-scale variability," as they describe it, suggests that global warming typically tends to retard El Nino activity, while global cooling tends to promote it."
Read here. As with most major climatic changes, solar influences are the major driver, not trace gases, such as CO2. Using Sr/Ca ratios and δ13C data obtained from stalagmite of Buckeye Creek Cave in West Virginia, USA, researchers reviewed 7,000 years of N. American hydro-climate. Researchers discovered that drought conditions followed the solar irradiance cycles of 200 and 500 years, approximately, in addition to even longer solar oscillations.
"The five researchers conclude by stating that their findings "corroborate works indicating that millennial-scale solar-forcing is responsible for droughts and ecosystem changes in central and eastern North America and that their high-resolution time series "provide much stronger evidence in favor of solar-forcing of North American drought by yielding unambiguous spectral analysis results."
Read here and here. It is a common refrain from global warming alarmists that the Medieval Warming Period was only a regional phenomenon, experienced only in the Northern Hemisphere, primarily in Europe. They continue to state this despite the scientific evidence supporting that the Medieval Warming, and other climatic periods, were world-wide events that affected different areas, at slightly different times and period extent spans.
From Antarctica, peer-reviewed research has studied the remains of mummified elephant seals from the Ross Sea area, which the seals used once as a habitat and breeding ground. Not any longer. The cold after Antarctica's warming drove the seals away, plus the sea pack ice caused the Adelie penguinsto move to warmer areas.
"Hall believes the presence of colonies along Victoria Land as
recently as a thousand years ago indicate the region was warmer than it
is today"...."The ice regime remains too severe for either elephant seals or penguins to occupy the southern VLC today.”
“We’re interested in them because they shouldn’t be there....Elephant seals don’t live in the Ross Sea
today"....The most recent warming period occurred between 1,000 and 2,500 years
ago, Hall noted. “We have pretty good evidence of that time period”
"Denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period borders on silly, for
as we see in this article (along with hundreds of others), the planet
was so warm 1,000+ years ago that elephant seals moved south to a much
warmer Antarctica. The case is occasionally made that the Medieval Warm
Period was a European event, or maybe an event confined to the
mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The skin, hair, and
mummified offspring of elephant seals found in Antarctica clearly show
that the entire planet was substantially warmer than today 1,000+ years
Read here. If you're not yet aware of this interesting "scientific" response, global warming scientists will go out of their way to flippantly dismiss the substantial 'Urban Heat Island' (UHI) effect. Why? Well.....because UHI totally overwhelms any measurable impact from CO2 emissions, and, by the way, it undercuts their desired funded-research, which is dependent on the AGW hypothesis. In the case of New York City, the UHI is absolutely huge, which is indeed a human impact, just not the favored CO2-caused impact.
"...the heat island signal, measured as the difference between the urban core and the surrounding rural surface air temperature readings taken at National Weather Service stations, averages ~4°C on summer nights (Kirkpatrick and Shulman, 1987; Gedzelman et al., 2003; Gaffin et al., 2008)," with the greatest temperature differences typically being sustained "between midnight and 0500 Eastern Standard Time (EST; Gaffin et al., 2008)." And on a day that they studied quite intensively (14 August 2002), they report that at 0600 EST, "the city was several degrees warmer than the suburbs, and up to 8°C warmer than rural areas within 100 km of the city."
For another look at UHI, but this time on the left coast, check out this link.
Read here. Global warming fanatics and gullible politicians have left us in a position that we are totally unprepared for the eventual recurrence of ice age type conditions, be it "major," "little" or "mini." The chorus of globalcoolingalarms is starting to get louder but do we have enough time to prepare for the worst?
"The Little Ice Age in Scandinavia, as in most parts of the world where glaciers were wont to form and grow during that period, was not a time of either pleasantness or plenty.In fact, it was downright depressing and dangerous.....Consequently, and in light of all of the debilitating phenomena associated with depressed global temperatures, if there was even the slimmest of chances that the historical increase in the air's CO2 content may have contributed somewhat to the 20th-century warming that brought the planet out of this awful environmental state, it should be applauded."
Read here. As Earth's climate has cycled through changes over the geological time, Greenland has faithfully recorded the changes. The glaciers and ice sheets responded accordingly, thus confirming that major climate change (including melting glaciers) will occur whether CO2 levels are low or high.
"Even in ice-cold Greenland, Holocene temperatures followed much the same temporal pattern
observed in other parts of the world, as did the advance and retreat
modes of its local glaciers, with maximum glacier extensions occurring
during the coldest period of the current interglacial (the Little Ice
Age). As a result, it was only to be expected that once the
millennial-scale oscillation of temperature bottomed out and began to
rise again, the result would be a significant warming and recession of
local glaciers, irrespective of anything the air's CO2 content might do..."
Read here, here, and here. Any scientist or apologist who even attempts to defend the Climategate scientists and their gross misconduct at attempting to silencecritics' science should be removed from any position of science education, research or authority. For scientists to even hint at condoning scientific fraud and conspiracy is 100% unacceptable. At a minimum at least, these Climategate deniers will have less credibility to stand on when appearing at a trial as an expert science witness, potentially hurting their wallet and their reputation. A good lawyer will make a shambles of their testimony as a witness for scientific truth.
Read here. Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms. One should note, that despite the Copenhagen COP-15 scary predictions from the leftist/liberal advocates, despite the mainstream media pandering to the alarmists, despite the typical non-scientific illiterate despot/tyrant/western leader calling for massive climate reparations, and despite the scientific fraud coming from Climategate endeavors, good, objective science is still being produced that sheds light on the very un-settled science of the climate.
"“The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!"
Read here. IPCC Climategate scientists have conveniently dismissed the influence of the Sun on the climate, by simply rejecting any solar science being included in the IPCC reports. Outside of the IPCC though, peer-reviewed research is determining that solar, not CO2, is the primary climate driver.
"The researchers' final conclusion was
that "quasi-100-year fluctuations of solar activity may be the primary
driving force of temperature during the past 6000 years in China." And
since their data indicate that peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures
were higher than those of the recent past, it is not unreasonable to
assume that the planet's recent warmth may have been solar-induced as
Read here. A critical climate forcing, atmospheric aerosols, is analyzed by six NASA researchers using satellite technology. Aerosols have huge impact on climate, from absorbing energy to reflecting sunlight. For climate models to function as planned, it necessitates a full understanding of aerosols interactions. The researchers found the following, which indicates a major climate model and assessment weakness:
"because of the global nature of aerosol climate forcings, satellite observations have been and will be an indispensable
[our italics] source of information about aerosol characteristics for
use in various assessments of climate and climate change,"...."our new results suggest that the
current knowledge of the global distribution of the AOT [aerosol optical thickness] and,
especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics remains
Read here and here. As every objective and open-minded scientist knows, the science is never, ever settled. Global cooling could very well be the future environment for earth, yet IPCC climate scientists, politicians and the mainstream media chose to put their faith in virtual, global warming climate models that have been proven failures time and again.
Read here. Earth's climate is constantly changing as it oscillates from one extreme to another. As the researchers documented, this oscillation also affects the Arctic area and its sea ice. During ancient periods, the earth was a lot warmer and produced periods where Arctic sea ice decline was substantial.
"Since the change in sea-ice cover observed at the end of the 20th century (which climate alarmists claim to be unnatural) was far exceeded by changes observed multiple times over the past several thousand years of relatively stable atmospheric CO2
concentrations (when values never strayed much below 250 ppm or much
above 275 ppm), there is no compelling reason to believe that the
increase in the air's CO2 content that has
occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution has had anything
at all to do with the declining sea-ice cover of the recent past..."
Read here. Article reviews a long list of ocean/sea temperature studies that confirm the recent ocean cooling. But scientists are unable to explain why oceans lost such a massive amount of heat, especially since climate models predicted the exact opposite. What these findings suggest are earth's warming/cooling climate cycles are dominated by natural causes yet to be identified, let alone being understood.
Read here. From the "science is never, ever settled department," new peer-reviewed research does in depth study on glaciers' retreat and find it's due to enhanced solar radiation.
"Snow and ice melt was stronger in the 1940s than in recent years, in spite of significantly higher air temperatures in the present decade. An inner Alpine radiation record shows that in the 1940s global shortwave radiation over the summer months was 8% above the long-term average and significantly higher than today, favoring rapid glacier mass loss."
Read here and here. Although the IPCC climate scientists have purposefully ignored the major solar impact on climate in order to make human CO2 emissions a global tax revenue stream, more scientific evidence pours in that the Sun drives earth's climate, not puny CO2 emissions. This research affirms what the majority of AGW skeptics have claimed.
Read here. It's been know that NASA's GISS unit has adjusted temperatures in the past that appear to make raw data look more like the "hockey-stick" favored by the Climategate scientists, IPCC bureaucrats and Copenhagen activists. To embellish their hockey-stick credentials for data fraud fabrication, the GISS people have just accomplished another round of adjustments that improves on their original hockey-stick attempts. Another example of scientists behaving badly, misleading both the public and policymakers. Go here to see another climate group's hockey-stick machinations.
Read here. New research confirms that there is a specific problem with land-based surface temperatures. Unlike satellites, the land surface temperature database appears to a have a linear bias towards warming. Based on the pre-Copenhagen Climategate revelations and new analysis since, the major climate research....
Read here. As the Climategate emails and data files revealed, the IPCC climate "scientists" have a thing for corrupting temperature data. The infamous Harry_Read_Me.txt file indicated that the CRU was responsible for data
manipulation that would change temperatures to meet their political
agenda - greater global warming. And as more people start to dig into
the data fraud, it's becoming much more obvious that a group of climate
scientists worldwide have worked hard to corrupt the temperature
databases to better fit the IPCC climate change political agenda. A
week ago it was the largemanipulation of New Zealand data. Now, it's the temperature database of Australia that was also heavily adjusted (faked) to produce a significant global warming effect - read the entire post to get a sense of how bad the temperature corruption is. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. During an extended period of low atmospheric levels of CO2, researchers find both higher and cooler Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures for prior historical periods. Solar activity correlation is indicated. (click on image to enlarge)
"The researchers report that "two multi-decadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as warm or warmer than near-modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P.,....during the coolest interval of the Little Ice Age (ca. 250 yr B.P.) indicate that SST was 2-2.5°C below modern SST." In addition, they found that "four minima in the Mg/Ca record between 900 and 250 yr. B.P. correspond with the Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, and Oort sunspot minima.""
Read here. Many attendees of the Copenhagen believe their actions, and those of others, can influence the outcome of the world's climate. The natural climate cycles and dynamics over the long run will not be altered by human intervention. The forces of nature are just too immense for humans to control as the below graph from Greenland ice cores indicate. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Using tree ring proxy data, a valley in the Tibetan Plateau reveals temperatures in summer months of Little Ice Age exceed the maximum summer temperatures in the supposed "unprecedented" global warming that climate alarmist scientists claim exists. Over 700 years of data indicates warming is not unprecedented, nor "global." These higher temperatures during Little Ice Age occurred in a low level of atmospheric CO2 period. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. The Lapland (Fennoscandia) region has been significantly warmer in the historical past. The sediment cores analyzed from a lake in Finland reveals temperatures in the Arctic to be much warmer than current temperatures, over a very extended period. Both natives and animal species survived this unprecedented and accelerated natural warming period, which atmospheric CO2 levels had zero to do with. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Another study establishing the global extent of both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age that Climategate scientists insist occurred only in the European region. In addition, the study found that MWP temperatures were warmer than those claimed to be "unprecedented" in the 20th century. The research also indicates a strong solar-climate relationship.
Kitagawa and Matsumoto also report
finding significant temperature periodicities of 187, 89, 70, 55 and 44
years. Noting that the 187-year cycle closely corresponds to the
well-known Suess cycle of solar activity and that the 89-year cycle
compares well with the Gleissberg solar cycle, they conclude that their
findings provide further support for a sun-climate relationship.
Read here. Well, it's not only the sun. When solar activity increases (decreases), the cosmic ray energy impact on Earth's climate decreases (increases). The Greenland ice cores are revealing the evidence of changing cosmic ray intensity from the varying levels of Beryllium isotopes being identified. Based on this evidence, there appears to be a strong relationship between the ups/downs of cosmic energy versus the downs/ups of Earth's climate.
The IPCC dismisses solar/cosmic influences because their marching orders are to solely blame anthropogenic reasons, namely human CO2. This is how we got a corrupted science, Climategate, and the Copenhagen boondoggle. But now, even major science organizations are expanding their climate change reasons beyond the simple CO2 hypothesis. Recently the National Center of Atmospheric Research (NCAR) changed their tune and is now producing research that points to a large solar impact.
Read here. What Climategate has revealed is the incredible loyalty of many scientists to a UN-IPCC political agenda to prove that human CO2 causes all global warming. Not only has this political agenda ended up corrupting a major portion of the climate science community, it has also caused major natural causes of warming and climate change to be totally ignored by the IPCC. Fortunately for the world's citizens, other scientists are pursuing the necessary, and honest, scientific inquiries that may explain why climate change occurs - and, solar activity, combined with cosmic energy is becoming the leading hypothesis.