Al Gore has often revealed a fundamental dishonesty about catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters. His fantasies have an unfortunate high correlation with absurd disaster movies.
Recently, he became the laughing stock in the science community with his bogus claim of a new hurricane 'Category 6' measurement being added.
That claim was quickly debunked, and now the new IPCC report (AR5) has essentially debunked most of the hysterical climate disaster claims made by Gore et al.
Per climate scientist Judith Curry's analysis of the IPCC's new AR5 report and confirming what others have found:
"But the real issue is this. The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).
The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here). The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century. These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW."
The complete failure of the global warming alarmism movement, as represented by the fringe green-fundamentalists, is being welldocumentedon alllevels - ultimately, this spectacular failure is the result of extremists promulgating anti-science climate predictions that ignore the most basic of known physics
Dr. William Happer is one of America's preeminent physics experts, who now calls Princeton University home.
He is the scientific antithesis of those fringe, global warming alarmists predicting climate change disasters and doomsday over the last few decades. Fringe-green personalities such as Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, John Holdren, Michael Mann, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Hansen, Al Gore, Jeff Masters, Paul Erhlich are just some of the quack climate prognosticators-of-hysteria that Happer usually mops the science lab floor with.
And Happer is at it again, taking to task the anti-science clerics in a piece written for the Watts Up With That? blog. His current ire is focused on the crazed CO2-fanatics' claims of future temperatures by year 2050.
In his article, Happer discusses the basic disregard of physics that a hapless (witless?) WSJ reporter is responsible for. Instead of writing about known science, she instead lends credibility to an utterly ludicrous +6.0 degree warming prediction from the fundamentalists, which has no real basis in physics.
As the good doctor explains, per the logarithmic nature of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, the subsequent global temperature increase will essentially be a +1.0 degree increase - not 2 degrees, not 3 and certainly not 6. This is irrefutable physics, explained in detail via the requisite formulas.
The real-world physics does not allow for a fantastic 6 degree increases to be achieved; for that to happen, the IPCC's mythical positive feedbacks have to arise.
In reality though, there is no acceptable physics science that supports the belief that positive feedbacks will arise, and at the same time produce the hypothetical big temperature increases. And adding to the green clerics' fallible alarmism, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the fantasized feedbacks of their consistently wrong climate models even exists (hmmm...kind of like those fantasized, mythical 72 virgins).
With all that in mind, the above chart attempts to visualize (using the gold-standard, IPCC empirical temperature dataset) what Dr. Happer has explained. Let's breakdown this Excel chart to its components:
1. The blue curve (with the bluish area underneath) represents the simple running 12-month average of global absolute temperatures calculated from HadCRUT4 monthly anomalies. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), the actual global temperature increase has been about +0.85°C, through February 2013.
2. The red curve represents a simple 60-month average of the blue curve's data. The recent decade+ global warming pause (i.e., "stall") is clearly evident.
3. The light orange curve is a 2nd order fitted trend of the global temperature measurements extended out till year 2050. Based on this Excel fitted trend of all the empirical evidence, global temperatures are headed for a 15.0°C average by 2050 - an increase of about +0.53 degrees over today.
4. The darker orange arrows on the right axis represents the likely range of temperature increase from a doubling of initial 1850AD CO2 levels that known physics supports (although Dr. Happer's calculations indicate an increase of+1.0 degree, this Excel chart utilizes a narrow range that many other experts have spoken to). The possilbe range per the physics: +1.0 to +1.5 degrees.
5. The black-dotted curve includes monthly estimates of monthly atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1959, and thereafter, the actual monthly measurements.
6. The grey curve is a 2nd order fitted trend for CO2 levels extended out to year 2050.
7. Finally, the pink-dashed line represents the non-physics +6.0°C global warming increase predicted by many of the fear-mongers.
This visualization of the empirical reality lends solid observational support to the physics laid out by Dr. Happer. In addition, the chart denotes how absurd the +6 degree fear-mongering is, and why "scientists" and reporters promulgating it should not be believed.
A University of Illinois "scientist" named Wuebbles goes hysterical about 2012 severe weather events - he thinks they are unusual, unprecedented...as usual though, green alarmist, taxpayer-funded scientists conveniently forget past history of climate change and bad weather
100% of climate scientists now agree that accelerating global warming has robustly stalled- the IPCC's gold-standard UK HadCRUT global temperature dataset confirms what skeptical scientists have long publicly discussed
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
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.
Global warming science facts from new research indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable
(Ooops....don't confuse this wonderful looking ENSO to the left with the climate variety!)
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists speculated that global warming from human CO2 emissions would somehow cause the El Niño/La Niña climate cycle to become stuck in the El Niño mode. This would be the proverbial "tipping point" potentially causing the infamous runaway warming.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, and fortunately for the rest of us, Earth's systems primarily operates in a negative feedback fashion, preventing runaway situations. In addition, Davies et al. confirmed that during past warming periods, ENSO did not become stuck in the El Nino mode.
"The authors write that "variations in the frequency and amplitude of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) recorded in both instrumental and paleoclimate archives have led to speculation that global warming may cause fundamental changes...More specifically, they state that there is speculation that "warmer climates may promote a permanent El Niño state...In a study designed to further explore this possibility...analyzed the latest Cretaceous laminated Marca Shale of California, which permits..."a seasonal-scale reconstruction of water column flux events and, hence, interannual paleoclimate variability," during what is known to have been a "past 'greenhouse' climate state."...In light of their recent findings, Davies et al. say there is "little support for the existence of a 'permanent El Niño'...that there was robust ENSO variability in past 'greenhouse' episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state," which point they also emphasize in the final sentence of their abstract, where they say that their evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability "does not support the theory of a 'permanent El Niño,'" [Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, John A. Barron 2012: Geology]
Conclusion: Global warming science facts - the fear-mongering speculation that modern global warming would initiate a permanent El Niño 'tipping point' is without empirical merit. The ENSO climate pattern will retain its variability, unchanged by human CO2 emissions.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
Listening to the claims of the well known anti-CO2 fanatic, one begins to seriously wonder if Bill McKibben is a pathological liar regarding global warming; or simply a climate change nutbag; or stupendously stuck-on-stupid; or blissfully ignorant of actual climate/weather science - regardless, his latest video certainly does confirm his renowned talent for extreme 'cherry-picking' [McKibben survey at bottom]
Read here. Clearly, McKibben 'cherry-picks' certain weather events that recently happened across the globe, and then remarkably claims that they are all "connected" to CO2-induced global warming.
Unfortunately for the viewers of this video, McKibben totally fails to explain that the world's top extreme weather experts can find no "connections" between these incidents and global warming.
In addition, he completely (conveniently?) ignores the continuous onslaught of natural disasters that took place prior to 1987, a period of supposed "safe" CO2 levels.
Finally, he fails to mention the obvious elephant in the global warming alarmist room - over the last 10 years there has been no global warming.
So...time for a survey...what's your take on McKibben?
The IPCC scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that increasing CO2 emissions would lead to a catastrophic permafrost tipping point, unleashing gigatons of methane gas - they were wrong
Read here. The Fakegate global warming alarmists and the IPCC's Climategate scientists are enraptured with the doom and gloom of climate change "tipping points." A favorite tipping point is that greater levels of CO2 emissions would cause a global warming that thaws the permafrost in northern latitude regions (tundra regions), such as Siberia, thus releasing gigatons of the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.
This is referred to as the global warming permafrost tipping point that results in runaway temperature increases. A new peer reviewed study finds that is not happening.
"Focusing on the massive seasonally-frozen ground region of Eurasia, Frauenfeld and Zhang employed a database of soil temperature profiles obtained at 423 stations to estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at 387 sites, which they did for the period 1930-2000, with an extension to 2008...Except for warming during the 1970s and 80s, northern Eurasian temperatures appear to have remained fairly stable. And of that warming, Frauenfeld and Zhang state that "the strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period." Thus, their work provides little to no evidence for any significant warming of this massive portion of earth's land mass over the past two decades, and absolutely no evidence for recent CO2-induced warming." [Oliver W Frauenfeld, Tingjun Zhang 2011: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The permafrost tipping point does not endanger the world since the thawing of northern global regions has stabilized since the 1990's, despite the huge increase in CO2 emissions.
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 runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead
Read here. The IPCC claims of a positive feedback mechanism that would cause runaway global warming, and a climate change tipping point, have never been validated as being climate science reality. Yet the IPCC's climate models all employ this phantom positive feedback, resulting in their infamous predictions of catastrophic climate events.
Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years.
"A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”...The average global cloud height is linked to the average global temperature—generally, the higher the average cloud height, the higher the average surface temperature, and vice versa...A point well-recognized by Davies and Molloy when they write “Changes in cloud properties in response to rising surface temperatures represent some of the strongest, yet least understood, feedback processes in the climate system.“..."If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature."...According to the calculations of Davies and Molloy, the negative climate forcing from a decrease in the average global cloud amount during the past 10 years has more than offset the positive forcing from an increase in greenhouse gases from human activities." [Roger Davies, Mathew Molloy 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Scientists determine IPCC hysteria about global warming causing Arctic methane gas "tipping point" release to be unfounded - it's not happening
Read here. The UN's IPCC, 'Big Green' and Climategate scientists are all about alarming the public and policymakers, actual science be damned. In this case, the usual scare-culprits came up with a theory that CO2 warming of global will cause a super release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane that would lead to a "tipping point" and "runaway" global warming.
And as it almost always turns out with the IPCC and Big Green, their hysterical climate change predictions are found to be meritless. The research team of Dmitrenko et al. pretty much defused this blown out of proportion prediction, adding to the incredibly long list of failed IPCC fear mongering prognostications.
"So despite a warming Arctic, the feared large methane release has not been manifest. Which fits very nicely into the new results from Dmitrenko and colleagues. They find that the methane observed to be bubbling up from the Arctic seafloor off the coast of Siberia to be the ongoing and long-term response to the flooding of the seabed there that occurred some 8,000 years ago and not a response to recent warming in the region...Dmitrenko et al. write: The CH4 [methane] supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes...The new Dmitrenko result pretty much throws cold water on the “shocking” news that has been making its way through the global media in recent days that reports from a recent survey of the Siberian Arctic Shelf indicate that vast quantities of methane are bubbling to the surface of the ocean and that this is “stok[ing] new global warming fears.” [Igor A. Dmitrenko, Sergey A. Kirillov, L. Bruno Tremblay, Heidemarie Kassens, Oleg A. Anisimov, Sergey A. Lavrov, Sergey O. Razumov, Mikhail N. Grigoriev 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. Back in the late 90's it was Y2K hysteria and when that became an international joke, alarmists moved onto the global warming hysteria. The similarities between the Y2K and AGW scares are striking. So similar that it's amazing anyone still believes the mainstream media and the "experts" regarding climate disasters (not that many do any longer).
The scary part is that when AGW hysteria finally fades away, and Al Gore can no longer be resurrected as a "climate expert," the bimbos and bozos of the press will just find another alarmist story and hit reset - deja vu all over again, as one well known expert would say.
"These nightmare scenarios are only too possible, Robert Sam Anson discovers as he traces the birth of the Y2K “bug,” the folly, greed and denial that have muffled two decades of warnings from technology experts, and the ominous results of Y2K tests that lay bare the dimensions of a ticking global time bomb...For example, he told readers that the one sure thing was that machines wouldn’t know what to do after the clock struck midnight. He declared that some computers would die, and with them the blind faith the world has placed in them. He suggested that Y2K-related lawsuits would total $1 trillion in the United States alone. But none of those things actually happened...Anson surveyed a wide range of well-educated, influential people – scientists, economists, government officials, and IT specialists. They obliged by talking about an accidental nuclear war and “blood-in-the-streets.” They declared that “our entire way of life is at risk” and predicted: “In the year 2000, Asia will be burnt toast.”
Read here. After years of making hysterical claims about the phantom of global warming, most AGW alarmists (Gore and his "97% consensus") have moved onto claiming that severe weather events are a result of "climate change." The major sleazeball, green PR flaks have gone out of their way to promote this propaganda strategy after their global warming hysteria debacle failed so miserably.
Despite multiple weather/climate expert analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave, including NOAA's CSI team, that determined the heat wave was a natural phenomenon of weather, anti-science lefties/liberals/progressives/Democrats keep lying to the public about climate change being the cause.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study that refutes the climate change "truthers" lie once and for all.
Dole et al. found, like the NOAA the experts, that there is absolutely no evidence that climate change was the mysterious force behind the heat wave. They indeed validated the original conclusion of previous experts: it's the weather, get over it.
"The authors write that "the 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting all-time maximum temperature records."...nine U.S. researchers determined that "analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave." In fact, they say that the model simulations provided "evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone." Similarly, on the observation front, they state that "July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave show no significant warming trend over the prior 130-year period from 1880-2009," noting, in fact, that "a linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of -0.1°C."..."Thus, they say their analysis "points to a primarily natural cause for the Russian heat wave," noting that the event "appears to be mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained an intense and long-lived blocking event," adding that there are no indications that "blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases." [Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, Judith Perlwitz, Jon Eischeid, Philip Pegion, Tao Zhang, Xiao‐Wei Quan, Taiyi Xu, Donald Murray 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Recently, NASA's James Hansen rounded up some exceptionally gullible and dim-witted teenagers to do legal battle for him in court. Hansen speculates that human CO2 increases will raise global temperatures so much that positive feedbacks occur causing a runaway global warming "tipping point."
Unfortunately for the dumb ass teenagers and their legal team, new peer-reviewed research (Barreiro et al.) determines that greater warming invokes a climatic tropical cloud negative feedback, not a positive feedback. This climate model research outcome basically eviscerates not only Hansen's speculative "tipping point" hypothesis, but also the teenagers' anti-science legal case crusade, pushed on them by a group of hysterical, manipulative adults.
"Using an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a slab ocean we study the effect of ocean heat transport (OHT) on climate...results indicate that the climate warms only if the OHT increase does not exceed more than 10% of the present-day value in the case of a strong cloud-SST feedback and more than 25% when this feedback is weak. Larger OHT increases lead to a cold state where low clouds cover most of the deep tropics increasing the tropical albedo and drying the atmosphere. This suggests that the present-day climate is close to a state where the OHT maximizes its warming effect on climate and pose doubts about the possibility that greater OHT in the past may have induced significantly warmer climates than that of today." [Marcelo Barreiro, Simona Masina 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists have predicted CO2-caused global warming for decades, which would cause the Greenland area to warm, leading to a gigantic ice melt, thus flooding coastal regions around the globe. Commonsense, anecdotal evidence, and tidal gauge and satellite data makes for convincing case that the IPCC and fellow alarmists have hilariously exaggerated this predicted catastrophe. Now comes further Greenland research that confirms the IPCC "science" failure.
Daniault et al. studied the East Greenland Current (EGC) for indications that the "melting" ice cap was injecting huge amount of fresh water melt into the current. They discovered that over the last two decades there is no increase in the EGC trend, which essentially demolishes the exaggerated IPCC predicted "tipping point" outcome.
The proverbial canary of Greenland fails to emit a peep: (click to enlarge, image source)
"The East Greenland–Irminger Current (EGIC), which flows southwestward along the eastern coast of Greenland, is important because variability in the EGIC likely influences convection in the Labrador and Irminger Seas, and could affect the global meridional overturning circulation...They find that the EGIC transport was close to average from 1992 to 1996, decreased between 1997 and 2005, and has increased since 2006. Beyond this decadal variability, the researchers find no significant trend in the 1992-2009 EGIC transport time series, confirming that EGIC transport variability has not changed significantly over the past two decades." [N. Daniault, H. Mercier, P. Lherminier 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here, here and here. The alarmist AGW hypothesis calls for an increase of atmospheric CO2 to increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the surface causing increased water evaporation; that will then increase the amount of atmospheric water vapor (the largest greenhouse gas); that will then increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the Earth's surface; and, etc., in a repeat-the-above scenario of a never-ending positive feedback loop finally leading to the mythical, catastrophic climate tipping points.
What's reality, though?
Ouch....the empirical evidence can be so brutal and unkind to the AGW doomsday-religion and fanatical believers.
From two different sources (click on each image for source), the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years.
Again, the IPCC's summary reports call for catastrophic calamities/disasters due to a hypothesis that relies on a hypothetical positive water vapor feedback mechanism that does not exist as required and predicted.
Read here and here. A team of 22 scientists, Willerslev et al., analyzed ice cores from southern Greenland and found that the southern Greenland ice sheet survived temperatures that were 9°F warmer than current temps. Even in this much warmer climate, the ice sheet remained at least 1,000 meters thick, which debunks the alarmist's claims of future ice sheet "tipping points."
Based on this analysis, the scientists concluded that the ice sheet's long-term stability is contrary to previous estimates of ice melt rapidity, such as those utilized by the IPCC climate models. The analysis also discovered that prior to ice sheet coverage, southern Greenland was a lush forest some 450,000 years ago, which is a 2 million year difference from previous expert estimates.
""What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought,"....."If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,"..."This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming." DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.....The discovery pushes forward the date when the last forests were known to exist in Greenland by nearly two million years." [Eske Willerslev, Enrico Cappellini, Wouter Boomsma, Rasmus Nielsen, Martin B. Hebsgaard, Tina B. Brand, Michael Hofreiter, Michael Bunce, Hendrik N. Poinar, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Sigfus Johnsen, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ole Bennike, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Roger Nathan, Simon Armitage, Cees-Jan de Hoog, Vasily Alfimov, Marcus Christl, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Joel Barker 2007: Science]
Read here. IPCC Climategate scientists and AGW alarmists have long predicted that human CO2-emissions will cause the Arctic to become "ice-free" - a "tipping point" to runaway warming. As with almost all AGW alarmists' predictions, new EU climate research by Tietsche et al. shows the ice-free Arctic tipping point prediction to also be bogus.
"First off, a flood of new research has hit the library shelves concerning the rates of ice flow of Greenland’s glaciers indicating that many of the proposed mechanisms for large and rapid ice loss there do not work the way they have been postulated to. And, new findings into how they do work indicate a much less drastic response to a warming climate.....Now, a team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, Germany, led by Steffen Tietsche, examine whether or not there is indeed a “tipping point” when it comes to Arctic sea ice coverage....."[W]e [ find that even dramatic perturbations of summer sea-ice cover in the Arctic are reversible on very short time scales of typically two years. This suggests that a so-called tipping point, which would describe the sudden irreversible loss of Arctic summer sea ice during warming conditions, is unlikely to exist."" [S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, J. Marotzke 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here and here. Alarmists love to speak of catastrophic climate "tipping points" that the climate models predict. A favored "tipping point" are the models' prediction that an increase in methane gas released into the atmosphere (due to AGW-warming) will cause an acceleration of climate warming. That's the alarmist theory.
What's the data say though? Turns out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill provided real world empirical evidence that totally refutes the hysterical claims and model predictions for a methane "tipping point."
"“Based on our measurements from earlier in the summer and previous other measurements of methane respiration rates around the world, it appeared that (Deepwater Horizon) methane would be present in the Gulf for years to come. Instead, the methane respiration rates increased to levels higher than have ever been recorded, ultimately consuming it and prohibiting its release to the atmosphere.“"...."What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate.""
Read here. There was a period during early 21st century when Greenland's ice mass reduction was happening due to its southeastern outlet glaciers melting and retreating. Most IPCC related alarmists claimed this was evidence of the infamous climate "tipping point" and predicted imminent catastrophic sea level rises would result.
Around 2006 the glacier retreats came to a screeching halt, thus stabilizing the ice sheet mass wastage and putting a lid on the typical alarmist's refrain that the Greenland ice sheet was disappearing. What stopped the glaciers melting? It was a natural, climatic negative feedback that took place (not the alarmist predicted, positive feedback induced tipping point).
A 2010 peer-reviewed study [Murray, T. et al. 2010] found that warm waters from the Atlantic were causing the melting of the glaciers; the melt waters from the glaciers decreased the temperatures of the surrounding waters thus the glaciers were no longer in contact with warm waters and the melting stopped.
"Murray et al. (eleven researchers) present evidence that suggests that the original ice wastage speedup "was the result of warm ocean waters coming into contact with the glaciers," and that this speedup "was probably terminated in part by increased discharge from the glaciers themselves, which increased ice sheet runoff and iceberg calving" that in turn "introduced additional cold water strengthening the East Greenland Coastal Current," which slowed glacier melting until warmer water again began to dominate the Current's waters.....write that their findings are suggestive of "a negative feedback that currently mitigates against continued very fast loss of ice from the ice sheet in a warming climate," and they thus conclude that "we should expect similar speedup and slowdown events of these glaciers in the future, which will make it difficult to elucidate any underlying trend in mass loss resulting from changes in this sector of the ice sheet." [Murray, T., Scharrer, K., James, T.D., Dye, S.R., Hanna, E., Booth, A.D., Selmes, N., Luckman, A., Hughes, A.L.C., Cook, S. and Huybrechts, P. 2010]
Read here. James Hansen, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists base frightening climate calamities (20 to 80-foot sea level increases) on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause an "amplified" increase in polar temperatures. Actual scientific researchers decided to investigate the validity of the polar-amplification hypothesis.
The nine researchers [White et al. 2010] examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.
"In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past several decades, White et al. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."" [White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010.]
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists have designed climate models that predict that methane (CH4) gases will increase as the world warms, causing a positive feedback that will then accelerate the warming increase, potentially to a "tipping" point.
New peer-reviewed research, though, sheds light on poorly understood climate processes that will actually negate additional releases of CH4, thus eliminating the beloved "runaway" positive feedback scenario from causing accelerated warming. (The "OMG-were-all-going-to-fry" type of warming that Gore, Hansen and the MSM speculate about.)
Scientists have discovered that soils in forested areas act as a huge sink for methane, absorbing even more as the soil becomes drier from warming - a negative feedback that climate models are presently incapable of predicting.
"Guckland et al. report that "the variation of CH4 uptake over time could be explained to a large extent by changes in soil moisture in the upper five centimeters of the mineral soil," such that "the CH4 uptake during the main growing period (May-September) increased considerably with decreasing precipitation rate," which finding, as they describe it, is "in accordance with the general observation that soil moisture is the primary environmental control on CH4 uptake in soils because it regulates methane flux into the soil through diffusion....."The results suggest that climate change [in this case, global warming] will result in increasing CH4 uptake rates in this region because of the trend to drier summers and warmer winters." And this response represents a negative feedback that should help to temper predicted increases in CO2-induced global warming." [Guckland, A., Flessa, H. and Prenzel, J. 2009.]
Read here. That great Nobel thinker, CO2-spewing, money-grubbing, sex-crazed poodle of a politician, Al Gore, claimed in U.S. Senate testimony that global warming caused peetlands to release more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, which is a "positive" feedback causing additional warming. Is the Gore-science prediction correct?
As usual, the answer is a definitive 'Nope.' In a new peer-reviewed study by Chinese researchers, it was found that peetlands provided a negative feedback mechanism as temperatures warmed. Now, who are going to believe? A selfish, self-centered, prima donna, Democrat political hack or real, peer-reviewed scientists?
"The authors write that peatland ecosystems "play a key role in the global carbon cycle and are influenced by global climate change," within which context the world's climate alarmists say the ongoing warming of the planet will lead to great releases of previously-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and methane, which will greatly exacerbate global warming.....In describing their findings, the four researchers report that "obvious increasing trends in RERCA [recent rate of carbon accumulation (RERCA)] were observed in all peat cores,".....they say that the temporal increase in RERCA in the upper regions of the cores -- which likely corresponded to the warmest segment of their two-century study period -- "changed to a much greater extent in recent decades than in the earlier period of peat formation.".....this most recent study out of China indicates that the world's climate alarmists have got things one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with reality in terms of the influence of earth's peatlands on the planet's temperature. These land types provide a negative feedback to global warming, whereby when they warm, they extract more -- not less -- CO2 from the atmosphere, applying a brake on rising temperatures..."
Read here. Global warming alarmists and the AGW hypothesis predicted more frequent and more intense weather events. This "climate change" was supposedly due to the vast increase in human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the AGW-hystericals (Hollywood celebrities, liberal/left politicians, MSM reporters, and government paid scientists/bureaucrats), they have been famously wrong:
"Hardly an hour goes by without some press release about the connection of CO2 and extreme weather...Clearly it isn’t happening with violent tornadoes, which peaked during the ice age scare of the 1970s...It also isn’t happening with hurricanes or major hurricanes. Both of them peaked during the 1950s...A direct comparison of hurricanes vs. CO2 shows that they peaked around 300 ppm...No evidence of a CO2 footprint for the most intense hurricanes...The hottest weather ever recorded in North America occurred almost a century ago."
"It isn’t heat. It isn’t tornadoes. It isn’t hurricanes. What is it?"
Since the late 1980's, global warming alarmists have been blaring ad nauseum that the world is suffering from ever higher temperatures, setting new hot temperature records, supposedly on a constant basis. Whenever warm weather arrives in the Northern Hemisphere, the warming hype onslaught from government paid climate scientists, MSM journalists and Hollywood celebrities escalates, as seemingly every new day, new week, new month, new quarter, new year and etc. is pronounced as the warmest evaaar! But is the world truly experiencing these highly publicized extreme, unprecedented hot temperatures?
The simple and honest answer is an emphatic 'NO!'. In a previous post, the actual temperature data from weather stations around the world showed that "global" warming is actually regional warming, and, my goodness, also regional cooling. And if human CO2 emissions were really causing unprecedented, hot global weather (temperatures) then new hot temperature records for each continent should be happening - it ain't happening, though, folks.
Looking at the map below (map source), the hottest and coldest temperatures ever recorded in modern times are presented for each continent.
Look closely and realize what has actually not taken place. The last 'hottest' temperature record was set way back in 1977. Per the calendar, some 33 years later, no continent has exceeded their previous hot temperature record - and some of those records go all the way back to the early 20th century.
Hey...the next time you hear or read "unprecedented temperatures" from a ignorant leftist/liberal elite, don't cut them any slack, go ahead and snicker (or start giggling) - it's alright, you're allowed to laugh at the stupendous ignorance exhibited by the Gore-zombies of the "progressive" left.
Remember, the myth that Earth "has a fever," and the myth that human CO2 causes extreme temperatures, and the myth that unprecedented warming is global, are just that: myths, spread by individuals with a variety of crazy-leftist agendas. (click on image to enlarge)
Did we say "extreme?" A few more Wikipedia extreme temperature/weather trivia points of relevance: (1) Fastest temperature rise recorded - 49°F in 2 minutes in 1942; (2) Fastest temperature drop recorded - 47°F in 15 minutes in 1911; (3) Most consecutive days above 100°F recorded - 160 days from 1923 to 1924. And by the way, each of these most extreme weather events took place well before the influence of large human CO2 emissions.
Read here. A recent study by alarmist scientists has implicated global warming as the cause of a 50% reduction of the oceans' phytoplankton over the last century. Fortunately for humanity and the oceans, the study seems to be fairly lame in terms of science:
1. There are numerous places in extremely warm sea waters where plankton thrives.
2. Plankton populations appear to be better correlated to water nutrient abundance, not temperatures.
3. Increased CO2 from human emissions should have increased the plankton population since it is a major nutrient.
4. The likelihood that a 4/10's of a degree increase in sea temperatures would cause a 50% reduction in marine life is essentially a ludicrous finding.
So, if there actually has been a 50% reduction in sea plankton, and if global warming isn't the culprit, then what is? Very possibly it's the intensive overfishing practiced by humans that is the cause:
"The problem is that we have fished out the oceans. Only 10% of the large fish found in the oceans in 1950 remain. And we have been over-fishing the oceans far longer than just the last 60 years. Even back in 1950, people were already noticing a reduction in stocks of whales, salmon, cod, halibut, and other fish. We probably have less than 10% of the large fish and whale stocks that were present before we began harvesting the seas in earnest...Where does the nitrogen that phytoplankton require come from? At the the mid-ocean levels, some comes from nitrogen fixing bacteria, but the rest comes from excrement in the form of urea and ammonia from bacteria breaking down protein as carcasses decompose. Iron, molybdenum, and phosphates come from the same sources. But remember we are removing large amounts of fish protein from the ocean, especially whale, tuna, shark, and other large fish. 90% of what was there is now gone. We are removing more every year. The fish products are no longer available to the phytoplanktons. Their food supply has diminished. They are starving."
Read here. The UK's Prince Charles is one of those wealthy global elites who now believes he has been put on Earth to save it, from the rest of us - yikes! Over the years, like so many of the rich and merit-less, he has become extremely fearful of human CO2 emissions, and never tires from lecturing about how others should live their lives. Of course, this includes his advice that everyone else should live a low carbon, low energy lifestyle, with the exception of his truly.
Back in 2009, 'da' Prince predicted the world only had 96 months before the global warming apocalypse. Gee, maybe his predictions will be better than all the failed ones from IPCC climate alarmist scientists! Hmmm...not likely. Here's what's causing the Prince to act like he's got bees in the bonnet (or is that bats in the belfry?). The potential of CO2 growing from its pre-industrial levels to 560 ppm by century-end has the prince literally going delusional.
Read here. Global warming alarmists and agenda-driven pundits frequently spread the meme that global warming will cause more wars, leading to all sorts of imagined scenarios of mayhem, destruction and death later this century and next. Is there any actual empirical evidence backing these more-war claims up? Nope.
In a new peer-reviewed study, researchers examine the empirical evidence and find the claims of retired, fat- assed admirals and generals (real and the armchair variety) to be without merit. Surprised?
"In their conclusions, the authors state “We present some evidence that periods with lower temperatures in the pre-industrial era are accompanied by violent conflicts”, consistent with what others had found in China. Furthermore, they note “If anything, lower temperatures imply violence, and this effect is much weaker in the modern world than it was in pre-industrial times. This implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries.”.....Another popular claim about global warming is once again not supported by what has been observed for centuries – sound familiar?"
Blue/green colors indicate a low correlation between high temperatures and violence. Red reveals the high correlation regions.
Of course, per the evidence, Turkey and the Balkans appear to have a strong correlation with warmth and war. Or, is that a correlation between a certain religion and war/terrorism? And what about Iceland? Yep, them damn Vikings and their distant relatives were pretty frisky during the Medieval Warming until the icy depths of the Little Ice Age finally put Iceland and Greenland back in the deep freezer.
With all the recent talk about the warmest month, the warmest first 5-months of a calendar year, or the warmest calendar year-to-be (maybe), it's probably a good time to review past NCDC global temperature data in a context that goes beyond the extremely short-term periods of 1 month, 5 months or even a calendar year. As a reminder, it's fair to point out that alarmist-profiteers, such as politicians, global warming scientists, celebrities and reporters, want everyone to focus on short-term movements and the fear of "tipping points," and ignore the more critical, longer-term historical context. (click on any image to enlarge)
Graphs 1A and 1B reveal that global temperatures have been experiencing a modest flat to cooling trend over recent years. Note that chart 1B actually includes the huge spike in temperatures due to nature's super El Niño - even with that impressive 1998 spike, global temperatures barely increased at a +0.60°C trend per century. Think about it - that's 13 years of essentially very tepid warming (darn close to being flat) despite all the wild, hotter-than-hell predictions of the likes of John Kerry, Obama, Al Gore and James Hansen.
Charts 2A and 2B represent longer-term periods of distinct non-warming and warming periods, per the NCDC data. The great "global-warming" scare is primarily based on the 25 year period ending in 2001 (graph 2B). The temperature increase of a +1.60°C per century trend for that recent period is not even close to being "unprecedented" warming, and is barely different than the warming that is shown in graph 3B.A +1.60°C per century trend is a temperature blip that will absolutely not cause any of the popular catastrophic claims as eagerly publicized by the vast majority of Democrats/leftists/liberals/progressives.
Above graphs 3A and 3B show the NCDC instrumental temperature record dating back to the late 19th and early 20th century. Beginning in 1880, there was an extended cooling period. Graph 3B represents the 33 year warming duration that got its start around 1912. In terms of length and overall warming, the 1912-1944 warming is almost identical to the "Great Warming" of 1977-2001.
Taking the above temperature data and putting it in a longer NCDC temperature record view, the below graph provides the needed context.
When all the warming and cooling periods are combined, there has been overall warming of +0.6°C since 1880, which is entirely normal, considering the realism that world temperatures have been on a natural warming trend since the incredible coldness of the Little Ice Age. Even with the large increase of CO2 levels since 1880, the overall warming is nothing extraordinary or dangerous. And just to be clear, the natural cycles of warming and cooling will keep global temperatures from jumping to the ludicrous heights (as the red dots represent on the above chart) that warming alarmist scientists and eco-activists speculate about.
One last graph and note:
Did the "Great Warming" of 1977 to 2001 actually occur? All the previous charts are based on the NCDC "adjusted" global temperatures not the raw, original thermometer readings. As the above chart reveals, the NCDC scientists have made every conceivable effort to adjust more recent temperatures to be warmer, and to make pre-1945 era warming cooler. Although it's clear that global warming has taken place, there is a very high likelihood that a portion of recent global warming is due to data fabrication.
Finally, have real-world temperatures reached a "tipping point"? The real-world facts don't support that hysterical speculation in the least - it's only in a eco-sexual fantasy dream of an Al Gore, and his ilk, where that climax occurs.
Read here. Global warming scare myths have been very effective tools employed by the the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen to frighten the undereducated and science illiterates, such as Hollywood celebrities and MSM journalists/pundits. One of the most effective scare myths has been the imminent West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) collapse, due to human CO2-induced global warming, which will raise sea levels to extraordinary heights. Luckily for humanity, the actual ice sheet science reveals the Gore/Hansen scare myth to be without merit - in other words, fraudulent speculation.
What's important to know is that the peer-reviewed science has determined that a WAIS collapse has not even happened when temperatures were significantly warmer in the ancient past. And, if it were to happen in the future, it would take thousands of years of ludicrously high, and sustained, southern ocean temperatures (not air). In summary, not bloody likely, mate.
"And once started, he says that the transition time for a total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would range from "one thousand to several thousand years," which time period, in his words, "is nowhere near the century timescales for West Antarctic ice-sheet decay based on simple marine ice-sheet models," such as have been employed in the past.....the specter of 21st-century sea level rise being measured in meters -- as hyped by Al Gore and James Hansen -- can be seen to be receding ever further into the distance of unreality. What is more, and in spite of the current interglacial's current relative coolness, the Vostok ice core data indicate that the current interglacial has been by far the longest stable warm period of the entire 420,000-year record, which suggests we are probably long overdue for the next ice age to begin, and that we may not have the "5 to 50 centuries" that O'Neill and Oppenheimer suggest could be needed to bring about the WAIS disintegration subsequent to the attainment of whatever temperature in excess of 4 or 5°C above the current global mean would be needed to initiate the process...In conclusion, therefore, it would appear that the climate-alarmist vision of impending WAIS collapse and disintegration is nothing more than an ill-founded hallucination."
Read here. Not only has the IPCC flagrantly reported false science in its reports, it has also been the purveyor of incredibly, wrong-way predictions about the climate. Why are the IPCC's climate models so awfully bad at climate predictions?
Well, the real scientists keep doing the needed grunt research, which includes the discovery that the ocean current conveyor system is entirely different than what the IPCC climate models assumed.
When a mistake of this magnitude is made, it is safe to conclude that any previous IPCC climate report predictions had no basis in reality. Indeed, garbage input definitely ends up producing garbage output; a truism that the IPCC constantly lives up to.
"That seems all well and good, except the MOC [Meridional Overturning Circulation] is not following the IPCC script. As the paper by Dr. Willis shows, there has been no slowdown over the past 7 years and probably none over the past 20 years, years during which global temperatures are purported to have risen significantly...The conveyor belt doesn't work as scientists thought and that has implications for global heat transfer, and hence climate, over time. Now it would appear that discrepancy was only the beginning and climate science has once again gotten the conveyor belt currents wrong...This shows the weakness of the science behind climate change. The predictions of future climate change are based on current understanding of how climate works—the theory. And the theory is based on observations of climate behavior in the past—the data. Except that the data regarding fluctuations in the MOC were spotty and incomplete. Now, with better data it looks like the theory is wrong. This in turn, means that all existing models are based on incorrect assumptions and may also have been calibrated using erroneous historical data. Yet predictions of future disaster generated by these models form the heart of the climate change alarmists' case for radical socioeconomic change."
Read here. U.S. government climate "experts" predicted that Arctic sea ice would melt to nothing because of the CO2-induced "unprecedented" (not) warming. As with almost all climate predictions emanating from U.S. climate scientists, nature is proving them wrong.
Why are U.S. climate scientists always so wrong? Are they just incredibly stupid? Nope, that's not the case - it's more venal than that. Simply put, their research funding (and salaries) provides the necessary incentive to mislead and lie about the global warming "crisis." Like all humans, scientists can be corrupted too.
For more failed predictions, read on. (click on left image to enlarge)
Read here. Climate models have been programmed to produce a thawing of the tundra permafrost from human CO2-induced warming. This tundra "melting" will produce an explosion of CO2 and methane gas into the atmosphere. This is the mighty lore of the AGW hypothesis, thus models must be instructed to simulate this outcome. Fortunately, the AGW hypothesis and climate model programmers were wrong - like big time.
Turns out that Arctic warming encourages growth of vegetation, especially dense, ground covering shrubs, which cause the ground to be shaded (go figure). As a result, the permafrost does not thaw as expected and large amounts of greenhouse gases are not released. Voilà, a natural negative feedback!
""Permafrost temperature records, however, do not show a general warming trend during the last decade, despite large increases in surface air temperature. Data from several Siberian Arctic permafrost stations do not show a discernible trend between 1991 and 2000. Our results suggest that an expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic triggered by climate warming may buffer permafrost from warming resulting from higher air temperatures.”....Blok et al. conclude “These results suggest that the expected expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic region, triggered by climate warming, may reduce summer permafrost thaw. Increased shrub growth may thus partially offset further permafrost degradation by future temperature increases. Permafrost models need to include a dynamic vegetation component to accurately predict future permafrost thaw.”"
Read here and here. As with every unsubstantiated, speculative prediction made by alarmists and climate models, there is a grain of truth regarding melting tundra/permafrost releasing stored carbon dioxide. But researchers have discovered that when these melted areas are thawed, the explosion of new growth of vegetation becomes a positive CO2 sink that sequesters carbon dioxide in greater quantities than that released from the thaw. So instead of permafrost melting being a positive warming feedback, it actually becomes a negative feedback - funny how the climate always seems to do that in the end.
"In light of these compelling observations, it would appear that even if global warming were to accelerate and reach a tipping point that led to the demise of much of the world's permafrost, the subsequent "terrestrialization" of these regions would actually lead to more carbon being stored in the soils and vegetation of these parts of the world, rather than -- as climate alarmist claim -- more being lost."
And what about the release of methane (CH4) from melting?
"Delisle throws in another fast ball regarding methane (CH4) at the end of the article by stating “A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”"
Just another reason why climate models are not an accurate representation of how the real-world climate actually works.
Read here. The "prestigious" medical journal, Lancet, has published bogus studies before but their latest admission that the 'vaccines cause autism' study they published (over a decade ago) was not worthy is a real eye-opener. Think about it - how many children have died from this idiotic science because of the fear it instilled in parents about getting their children vaccinated.
Since a major journal has finally taken the correct step to denounce bogus science they published, is it not the perfect time for journals such as Nature, Science and the New Scientist to do a similar and needed housekeeping regarding bogus science associated with the politically correct global warming agenda? Would it really be that hard for the journals to finally recognize (what everyone else knows) the sham that the original "hockey stick" represents and all of its associated progeny? Is it time for the major science journals to reconsider how they conduct the climate science peer-reviewed process so that major data cherry-picking, data manipulation and statistical fraud are recognized and challenged well before these studies get in print?
Obviously, the science journals represent a huge part of the bogus science problem. The "peer-reviewed" moniker has become a joke for the layperson, which certainly is not a good attribute to achieve. But journals are only part of the the problem. Unfortunately, scientists are becoming ever more notorious for publicizing issues and future events as calamitous, sure thing, predicted outcomes that makes it difficult for the journals, let alone the MSM, to ignore. Often the scientists' public relations effort of promoting fear and catastrophe is enough to get the journals interested instead of conducting their efforts in the needed role as skeptics.
Here are some examples of older/newer fears and catastrophes predicted by scientists that should have been exposed as bogus or way too extreme from day one:
1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945 8 DDT and cancer 1962 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968 10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970 11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970 12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971 13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972 14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974 15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976 16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979 17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985 18 Listeria in cheese 1985 19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985 20 Salmonella in eggs 1988 21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990 22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996 23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999 24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004 25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005 26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008
"None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate. Based on analyses to date, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)."
As the chart below reveals, temperatures over the last 130 years have been increasing at a 0.57°C per century rate. For the last 10 years, the rate per century has been 0.68°C. Global warming alarmists, such as the MIT climate model scientists, claim temperatures will jump +7.0°C by 2100. In order to reach that temperature level, temperatures will have to increase at a 0.76°C per decade rate (that equals a 7.60°C per century rate). That's over 10 times greater than has been experienced in the last ten years. Putting aside the climate model predictions; looking at the graph instead; and then applying some common sense, there is no way that type of temperature outcome is going to happen. It's all hype to generate press stories, to raise research funding and to cause public fear. (click on image to enlarge)
Now that the 2-week Copenhagen U.N. climate conference fiasco is over, much analysis will take place as to why the conference was such an abject failure. Although there are likely to be multiple valid reasons, few, if any liberal-leftist, will admit to the primary reason for the failure: that the global warming science was bogus and climate lies perpetuated the fraud.
Climategate exposed the really filthy linen of climate science, but that didn't keep the likes of Obama, Gore, Pachauri, Pelosi, Hugo Chavez, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and thousands of others, from repeating the same global warming lies that were a result of bogus/fraudulent science. In the end, these same leaders knew that the catastrophic global warming scenarios were based on deceit and lies, thus there was no true, compelling, scientific reason to solve a fabricated climate crisis.
There are several lies that public officials, "scientists," and activists used over and over in an attempt to build support within the mainstream media and the public. One of the principal lies that was very effective with the press and leftist pundits, but not with the public, was that global temperatures are "accelerating" and will reach climate model tipping points in the very near future. As the U.S. climate agency data reveals below, "accelerated warming" is a flat-out lie. (click on image to enlarge)
Global temperatures have increased since 1880 (and a portion of that increase is likely due to CO2), but there is no way to interpret accurately that global temperatures are "accelerating." And, if the warming bias adjustments made by the climate research agencies are removed (see thin blue curve) then the actual temperature increase since 1880 has been very modest.
In addition, if one examines various regional temperature readings from the 1820's, it becomes evident that global temperatures in the early 19th century, for the world's northern hemisphere, were warmer than our modern, late 20th century temperatures. That suggests modern temperatures may actually be in a cooling phase, relative to our recent historical past, instead of "accelerated warming."
Below are depicted 3 temperature trends extending out to 2100. Using NCDC global temperature data, the three trends have a 2100 temperature spread of approximately 2.0°C. The green trend line represents the long-term trend, and it's end point almost perfectly matches the IPCC prediction of what temperatures will be, based on a doubling of CO2 levels from 280 ppm, the pre-industrial level (note: doubling of CO2 causes a 1.1°C increase and any further CO2 increase has almost zero impact on temperatures).
(click on image to enlarge)
The blue trend represents the cooling trend that developed in 2001. The red trend represents the "hot" trend that climate alarmists are concerned about since its appearance in the mid-1970's. Note that the red trend is above the IPCC prediction for the CO2 doubling mark, but it is well below the highest temperatures reached in the Medieval Warming Period.
What about those purple stars? Those are several of the climate model predictions that the IPCC and others state are likely. How could any of the historical trend lines possibly make gigantic shifts up to those purple stars? Well, it's called "positive" feedback. When temperatures reach the black/green star temperature, that's when the climate models' positive feedback supposedly does its magic and boosts temperatures to the purple stars. Unfortunately, when temperatures reached the Medieval gold/red star in the past, that old magical "positive" feedback moment did not occur, nor did it occur at other past times when temperatures were even higher.
Why not? Here's why not. And for good reason, positive feedback is unsustainable in nature unless we are talking about nuclear reactions, but that's not what the natural climate is about. Global temperatures may increase, but they won't do so in either an accelerated or runaway mode as global warming alarmists and climate modellers speculate.
Read here. It's a corruption scandal story that won't die, which made it easier to deliver a blow that staggers the Copenhagen global governance, increased taxation, and financial profiteering desires of the political/business elite. No doubt about it, Climategate resonates with the public hugely, everywhere, as it has become more widely known that this is not about earth's climate and saving people's lives.
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. It's another case of wild speculations by climate alarmist scientists that starts it; then it is hysterically blown out of proportion by the mainstream megaphone; and, it is then proven to be demonstrably wrong (the wild speculation) by real scientific research. Surprise!
Everyone repeat after us: any climate or environmental predicted calamity, catastrophe, or crisis reported by the mainstream media is bogus - ignore it. Again. The world is not going to end because of human CO2. In fact, the world may become better because of more CO2.
Read here. The AGW hypothesis claims that the world's oceans have significantly warmed due to human CO2 emissions, and will continue to warm at an accelerated pace. The IPCC climate models were programmed to assume this ocean warming assumption. Reviewing the major research studies on this issue over the last decade, it's been found that the oceans have not significantly warmed, and more importantly, have actually cooled (lost heat) in recent years. This behavior runs counter to every IPCC climate model. In addition, one of the studies points to the oceans acting as a giant climate thermostat incorporating negative feedback mechanisms. The negative feedbacks prevent the global warming from achieving any type of "tipping point."
Read here. Naturally, many self-important (delusional?) individuals will be attending the Copenhagen (COP-15) conference in order to save the world from climate change. Most of the attendees, including celebrities, political leaders, and the MSM press, believe fervently in the climate "tipping points" (positive feedback) meme. The good news for any attendee's sanity, and for all of the rest of us humans, the actual climate science is reporting that negative feedbacks actually rule the realm. Conclusion? Tipping points are the urban legend of "elites" and ain't about to happen - they're hype.