This article discusses the severe forest fire that is currently happening in the Fort McMurray area of Canada, which the article's author takes issue with those claiming the fire is due to climate change from human activities - i.e. human CO2 emissions, etc.
Claims that specific fires (and forest and wildfires overall) are due to human greenhouse gases have routinely been made since the 1988 testimony of NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, predicted that rapid and accelerating warming from GHG emissions would cause more severe and frequent weather events.
As a result of this Congressional testimony, the "consensus" climate experts then predicted that the "dangerous" human-caused warming would produce a significant trend increase of wildfires, especially in the northern hemisphere's boreal forests.
Although the globe has warmed since 1988 (not rapid, nor accelerating, see here and here), the trend for Canadian boreal forest fires has been the opposite of that predicted over the 27 years after the Hansen 1988 testimony.
The adjacent charts plots the number of Canadian forest fires and hectares burned. Clearly, the trends are declining, which suggests an inverse relationship with the level of atmospheric CO2 (ppm CO2 is the chart's right axis).
Despite those climate "experts" failed prognostications, the recent irrefutable empirical evidence indicates that the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions are producing a greener and healthier biosphere, which actually may be more resistant to wildfires.
Additional forest fire articles of the past [tip: then use browser Cntrl-F function to do search on word 'forest' to find forest fire news articles on that page].
Note: Canadian forest fire statistics source; Excel used to plot annual fire statistics and linear trends.
"Expert" predictions, especially those associated with climate change, fail more often than not.
The climate change consensus has long been predicting that global warming will bring more flooding to river regions.
"...freshwater flooding is "the most impacting natural disaster in terms of number of people affected and economic damages," adding that "some studies in the literature (e.g. IPCC, 2013; Stern Review, 2007) seem to indicate that flood damages are expected to increase in the near future as a consequence of a global climate change," citing the additional studies of Hall et al. (2005) and de Moel et al. (2011)."
So, several scientists decided to actually analyse the available climate data for the Po River region of Italy to determine if the IPCC and other predictors had any merit.
As always, they found the predictions counter to reality:
"...analyses revealed there was a significant increase in residential growth in and around the Po river, particularly near levees and dykes, which increased the exposure of persons and property to flood risk over the period of study. However, meteorologically speaking, Domeneghetti et al. report flood events have not increased. "Consistent with previous analyses (see e.g. Montanari, 2012; Zanchettini et al., 2008)," they write, "our trend detection analysis, which we carried out on long historical series observed for the Po river, does not detect any evidence of a statistically significant change in the flood hazard along the Po river and supports the stationarity of the hydrological series during the period of interest (i.e., last five decades)."
Government-funded scientists, the Green's anti-CO2 activists and the mainstream media-alarmists have all claimed that the current drought being suffered by the US west coast is the extreme climate change Americans have never experienced before.
They claim it is due to human CO2 emissions of the modern industrial and consumer civilization.
Yet severe droughts have been part and parcel of the world's climate since humans started recording severe weather events. Across the globe, and the US, there is no shortage of historical drought reports and other extreme climate conditions.
More specifically, as the images below attest, drought extremes in the US have been extensively documented by NOAA since the 1900s, with most taking place well before the global 350ppm CO2 atmospheric level was commonplace.
For a perspective, the October 2015 drought conditions (top-left image) have often been exceeded by some kick-ass October drought conditions in the past. (click on any image to enlarge)
Simply put, the climate has always been changing, impacting large geographical regions at any given time. As the scientific empirical evidence makes clear, a changing climate is not unusual, and most definitely is not solely due to human CO2 emissions.
For someone to claim otherwise is literally anti-scientific.
Note: Source of images from this NOAA site. During 1988, global CO2 emissions first cracked the 350ppm CO2 level. NOAA reports that the October 1988 reading was 349.08.
The climate change fear-mongering generated by government-related persons and agencies has recently reached peak levels, with claims that are a mixture of absurd and just plain silly when compared to the empirical scientific evidence.
Such claims include the meme that rising global CO2 has caused accelerating, rapid US warming; that droughts are destroying all of our food crops; that more frequent and stronger weather disasters from warmer temperatures are wreaking untold harm; that global warming will shorten/threaten US life spans; that ever expanding wildfires are consuming our forests; and etc., etc., etc.
(One indeed wonders why so many Americans can't wait to retire to the tropical and warmer climates that Hawaii, Florida, Arizona and S. California offer if warm temperatures are so harmful and deadly.)
There are even bizarre claims that bumblebees' tongues are shortening and pumpkin pies are at risk, both supposedly due to global warming.
With all that said, the U.S. has the best weather and climate measurement capabilities in the world, with observations from a wide geographical dispersion and a extensive range of micro-climates, be it tropical islands or Arctic tundra. The most extensive and complete empirical evidence comes from the continental U.S., which the vast majority of the American population resides.
Instead of believing the promoters of doomsday screams about every single impending weather event being the next civilization-busting disaster, or the journo/pundits' propensity to shout about the hottest hour, the hottest day, week, month, summer and/or hottest year stats (take your pick) ad nauseum, it might be best to reflect on what the American public has realized about long-term climate change doomsday from the empirical evidence - it's a very thin nothing-burger.
To the empirical evidence.
The adjacent chart depicts several long-term climate record trends of 10-year averages (US hurricane landfalls, forest fire acres, drought, precipitation, maximum and average temperatures). The chart also includes the following 10-year average trends: atmospheric CO2 levels; the U.S. corn yield; and, the U.S. life expectancy trend from decadal census information.
As can be seen, the CO2 growth trend has been truly remarkable, only exceeded by the exceptional trend for corn yields (by the way, other agricultural crops also possess exceptional yield trends). And the increasing life expectancy trend for Americans is none too shabby either.
In contrast, the charts reveal the truly unexceptional, unremarkable long-term trends for any climate/weather attribute previously predicted to worsen from the modern era's CO2-induced climate change.
These fitted curve trends have yawn-inducing characteristics, indicating CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is spectacularly not the powerful greenhouse gas emission that experts conjectured about.
Conclusion: Although short-term variation extremes in weather attributes and incidents can be large and at times awe-inspiring, they are not climate change. Long-term climate change since the Little Ice Age has been dominated by a very slow warming, which the chart's 'average' and 'maximum' temperature trends reveal. The long-term climate change across the continental U.S. as represented by the precipitation, hurricane landfall events and drought are much more difficult to discern from their respective fitted trends (objectively, they are rather climatically insignificant overall). Forest fire acres burned has had an uptick in recent years (for bureaucratic reasons) but is vastly below levels reached in the early 20th century. All in all, human CO2 combustion emissions are directly linked to the great agricultural prosperity and vastly improved well being of the American citizen over the past century, much to the chagrin of doomsday cultists - whether yesteryear's or today's.
In other words, the politicos and bureaucrats predictions of gloom, doom and disasters were wrong, significantly.
Notes: Excel used to produce chart's fitted 2nd order trends. Sources of datasets used for chart can be found by downloading this Excel spreadsheet from MS OneDrive. For the temperature, precipitation and drought (PHDI) curves, 9-month YTD through September measurements from NOAA were used. CO2 levels used for its trend curve represents the September ppm value for each year. Corn yields represent the 'commodity and market' year reported. Both corn and CO2 had beginning values set to '10' in order that they would fit on a '0' to '150' y-axis (did not affect linear trends of either). Hurricane US landfalls observations used represent a per year average from the given decade's count of events. Life expectancy data are U.S. decadal averages for female/male and all races.
NOAA and NCDC have updated many of their weather/climate trend reports for end of 2014...as observed in the recent past, severe weather trends have not seen the "expert" predicted increase from CO2, other greenhouse gases and, of course, global warming...the climate-doomsday cult talk from political-persons, mainstream reporters/pundits and on-the-dole bureaucrats remains without any empirical merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One means to view the lack of climate extremes is to examine an interesting dataset that NOAA/NCDC maintains - the monthly % of U.S. that is either very wet and/or very dry. It has recently been updated through 2014.
As can be seen from this chart, very wet and very dry U.S. conditions fluctuate dramatically. Yet, some 45 years after 1970, the 5-year averages by the end of 2014 are close to the values decades before.
The huge increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from human emissions over this time obviously has had no impact (e.g. correlations of either climate condition with CO2 doesn't even reach the ±0.03 yawn mark).
This NOAA dataset extends all the way back to 1895; and the end result is its being, on average, within the same narrow range over the last century.
Despite the proclamations by those politicians and elites who are readily influenced by moneyed special interests, there is yet to be any empirical scientific evidence that CO2 is a causal agent producing extreme climate change or severe weather events.
Science "journalists" who promulgate climate change hysteria have been recently pushing the fearmongering of the "hottest" year meme (or "warmest" if you prefer), which is essentially a lie...apparently, both the world's food crops and the public are simply now ignoring the proclamations of these chicken little, climate-cult doomsday criers.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.
Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.
Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.
And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.
On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.
It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.
Every time there is a forest fire (ie wildfire) global warming alarmists, like a pack of Pavlov's dogs, start hysterically howling that human CO2 caused the recent incendiary event...while at the same time claiming their predictions of increasing wildfire damage from CO2-warming are coming true...however, like always, the empirical evidence proves the alarmists are without scientific portfolio.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Let's cut to the chase - are human CO2 emissions causing an increase in U.S. forest acreage being decimated by flames?
The adjacent chart is a plot of U.S. wildfire acreage going back to 1926, through the end of 2013. The green curve represents acres burnt (in millions).
In addition, the chart includes the plot of lumber harvested (billion board-feet) from U.S. forests and atmospheric CO2 levels over the same approximate time span. The brown curve is the lumber harvest; the grey curve is CO2 (ppm).
What does the chart indicate?
Wildfire acreage burnt collapsed after the 1930s. Not only did this collapse coincide with a growth of atmospheric CO2 levels from human CO2 emissions, the huge decrease in acres burnt took place when the harvesting of lumber from U.S. forests grew massively.
Then, as the total amount of harvested lumber declined and reached a significantly lower level - due to new environmental regulations - the number of acres burnt each year started to incrementally increase during the 1990's.
Intuitively this makes sense. As the dead and disease-infected trees started to pile up from lack of harvesting due to environmentalist concerns and government regulations, the U.S. forests became wildfire tinderboxes, easily set off by lightening and human carelessness - the law of unintended consequences from passionate 'green' policies strikes again.
Per the statistical relationships, both board-feet harvested and CO2 levels have an inverse correlation (-0.6 and -0.5, respectively) with the acreage scorched, across the entire time span.
Conclusion: It's always dangerous to draw firm conclusions from just statistics, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that both lumbering and higher CO2 levels makes for less wildfires. The record clearly shows that wildfire damage over the last two decades are not unprecedented, and it remains well below the horrendous amount of acres burned during the early 20th century. For policymakers, the sanest recommendation towards improving U.S. forest health is to increase the amount of allowed lumbering, thus thinning forests of tinderbox materials; plus, to recognize any future CO2 increases as a potential contributor to healthy forest growth.
Note: The wildfire acreage burned during years 1926-1959 and the lumber board-feet harvested came from this congressional testimony by scientific forestry expert; post 1959 data from this government agency site. CO2 datasets found here. The chart's right axis represents both atmospheric CO2 levels and harevested board-feet. For the latter, the largest number at the top, '1300', reads as 13 billion board-feet; for CO2, it would read 1,300 ppm.
Another IPCC climate model prediction fails the ultimate test...it's confirmed that the computer simulations of increased flooding did not materialize...and human CO2 emissions do not cause more and bigger floods.....
(click on image for source)
The supposed extreme climate change caused by human CO2 emissions is not producing the predicted increase of intensity and frequency of regional flooding.
A new study conducted by experts comes to an unsettling truth: the consensus climate science of the IPCC, CAGW alarmists and computer models has been spectacularly wrong.
"In a massive review of the subject conducted by a team of seventeen researchers hailing from eleven different countries, i.e., Kundzewicz et al. (2013), we learn the following: (1) "no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades," (2) "there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex," (3) "considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of changes in flood magnitude and frequency," (4) increases in global flood disaster losses reported over the last few decades "may be attributed to improvements in reporting, population increase and urbanization in flood-prone areas, increase of property value and degraded awareness about natural risks (due to less natural lifestyle)," (5) "the linkages between enhanced greenhouse forcing and flood phenomena are highly complex and, up to the present, it has not been possible to describe the connections well, either by empirical analysis or by the use of models," and (6) "the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape," which they say "will be the case for decades to come.""
Depending on which climate alarmist "expert" you listen to, be it Al Gore, Tom Steyer, Obama, John Holdren or Michael Mann, each claims that the U.S. is suffering from CO2-caused extreme climate change...big problem though, NOAA empirical measurements of precipitation (snow and rainfall) prove those claims are nothing but blatant, political anti-science liesfalsehoods exaggerations.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
A prior 'C3' article documented the current normality of extreme drought across the globe.
With that said, the western U.S. is currently experiencing a very bad drought. If it's the start of another 200-year mega-drought, which plagued the area prior to the 1700's, there will be some very serious problems.
But for the entire U.S., NOAA reports that recent precipitation levels are normal - extreme high or low precipitation levels are not the norm.
The chart on the left is a plot of NOAA monthly measurements of precipitation since 1895, through June 2014. (NOAA dataset source) The black dots represent the moving 5-year (60-month) average of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The dark blue curve is the simple 60-month moving average of precipitation; the red line denotes the average monthly rainfall over the 1,434 months. As can be seen, the moving average is just about parked on top of the overall average - the declared current climate extremes purported by alarmists do not exist for the U.S.(nor for the globe as the prior article pointed out).
The total lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15+ years is completely counter to the CO2-based CAGW hypothesis that alarmists believe in fervently.
And what about other climate change "extremes" they hypothesize - well, the charts tell the real science story.
On this article's chart, the past extremes have been denoted (see color dots). Clearly, weather extremes can happen on a monthly basis, but they are rare, with no apparent association to CO2. Extended extreme precipitation levels over decades are literally non-existent in the NOAA climate record database.
Those Stubborn Facts: U.S. climate extremes of excess/minimal precipitation (rainfall and snow) are not evident in the recent climate record. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 causes modern precipitation extremes does not hold water, so to speak.
Like the UN, the IPCC is a political organization that seemingly has a primary objective of misleading the public and policymakers about climate science. Another example of such behavior is.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable - essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased.
Those are the stubborn facts that the adjacent chart reveals as unequivocal.
Yet, because of the political-driven agenda the IPCC pursues, their latest report states that the world's food production would be more "secure" if CO2 emissions were reduced. Hmm...the exact opposite of known scientific fact.
"There, it can be seen that enriching the air with CO2 almost always leads to significant increases in the photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all of the world's major food crops. And as for the highly-unlikely increase in global temperature that the world's climate alarmists predict to result from projected increases in the air's CO2 content, there are also many studies that reveal the positive consequences of warming for agriculture in Earth's cooler high-latitude regions, such as the recent study of Meng et al. (2014) dealing with maize production in the northern reaches of China. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it..."
"Yet the primary efforts of both of these entities [Ed. the UN's IPCC and the UNFCCC] have been, and continue to be, directed against that which is most needed to produce the required amount food, as they both argue for reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which comprise much of the aerial "food" that sustains all of our food crops."
Truth be told, the headline of this post is not an IPCC quote but obviously it represents what the IPCC is attempting to convince the public of, and unfortunately, the real-world, objective science does not support it in the least.
Summary: The IPCC's fundamental lies continue to establish the blatant anti-science which permeates the entire UN's climate "research" reporting - it's propaganda spin all the way down.
Additional 'C3' charts that challenge the IPCC's anti-science. Note: NOAA CO2 levels on above chart have been super-imposed on the original found here.
What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.
The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.
The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).
Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.
Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.
Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?
The 2013 year-end update of short-term drought conditions across the contiguous U.S. has been released.
The latest NOAA empirical evidence confirms that the drought trend has improved (i.e., lesser drought conditions are better than greater) since 1950. Not reflected on this chart is that the aqua-colored trend is an actual improvement to the trend stretching back to 1895, the inception of dataset.
Why 1950 for this drought chart's trend?
The IPCC now considers the year 1950 as the marker for CO2-driven catastrophic climate change. The climate "experts" and computer models that the UN's IPCC relies on predicted that droughts would become a major issue starting in the second-half of the 20th century.
Good news...the IPCC experts were wrong, again. This NOAA chart represents the indisputable facts.
As an aside, this 1895-2013 chart also depicts how the climate is constantly changing over extended periods - going from one extreme to another. This is clear documentation of the natural climate change that occurs and what skeptics emphasize, while at the same time, anti-CO2 fanatics and global warming alarmists completely deny.
The CAGW climate change alarmists and "experts" fill the mainstream media with frightening tales of looming disasters, including crop failures that will lead to mass starvation - but when compared to global warming reality and actual world rice production and yield, the research and empirical evidence show output results are enhanced, not harmed
(click on images to enlarge, data source, rice image source)
The green-religion fundamentalists have a long history of making crop failure and massstarvation predictions. A 2010 study by a group of academia warming alarmists added to the collection of doom prognostications of coming crop failures, due to anthropogenic warming from human CO2 emissions.
As the above chart on the right indicates however, despite the modest global warming since the 1970's, and the massive increase of human CO2 levels, world rice production increased and continues to do so. Why?
Well, certainly better agriculture methods and technology made fools of the green 'Earth Day' fanatics. In addition, the latest research actually documents with irrefutable evidence that rice crop yield benefits from both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.
Roy et al..."the five researchers from the Central Rice Research Institute of India conducted a three-year open-top-chamber field study to observe the effects of elevated as opposed to ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 vs. 390 ppm), as well as elevated temperature (T, 2°C above ambient temperature), on dry matter production, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant parts, and their allocation in a tropical rice cultivar...Results of the experiment revealed the following responses in the elevated CO2/elevated temperature treatment: (1) Dry matter accumulation in the aboveground portion of the rice plants was enhanced by 18.1% at maturity. (2) Root biomass, leaf area index and net carbon assimilation rates also increased significantly. (3) Grain yield was significantly higher (19.6%) in the CO2-enriched treatment. (4) The net carbon yield increased by 24.2%. (5) Nitrogen allocation increased significantly in leaf (13%), stem (14%) and panicle (17%) at maturity. [K.S. Roy, P. Bhattacharyy, S. Neogi, K.S. Rao, T.K. Adhya 2012: Field Crops Research]
1. Global warming alarmists' predictions of world hunger and mass deaths should not be believed
2. Green agenda-driven foretelling of crop failure and starvation from higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are obviously without much merit
3. Rice crop yield and production improvements will likely continue despite the doomsday predictions
In this TED presentation, scientist Allan Savory can't resist the temptation to spread the mindless and gratuitous climate fear-mongering that has become so predictable and boring. Putting aside that, his science regarding intelligent land-use is fascinating.
His claims that better livestock policies will "lock" carbon into the soil, thus reversing never-ending, natural global climate change is fundamentally ludicrous, but his research experience does indicate that huge local climate changes are possible.
Indeed, it would appear cows are capable of changing desert-like conditions into a grassy savanah. And from his research, it is obvious that desertification is primarily the result of stupid land-use polices versus alarmist speculations that human CO2 emissions are the cause.
Special note: Prior to this man finally developing his intelligent land-use/livestock policies, he had 40,000 elephants shot in a failed effort to implement policies based on the experts' "consensus" science of the time. Now add to that carnage the millions of African deaths due to the scientific consensus-stupdityregarding DDT, one can then safely surmise that scientists from around the world turned Africa into the proverbial 'killing fields' for both man and beast.
Green-sharia scientists in the pay of Big-Green constantly promote the idea that recent floods are the result of human-caused global warming and climate change - yet all empirical evidence and objective research proves that modern flooding is not increasing in terms of frequency and size
During 2012, parts of Spain experienced devastating floods. This terrible weather event was immediately claimed as more proof that climate change, due to global warming, is causing extreme violent disasters.
But are these "climate change" claims accurate, based on the latest scientific research or just more green-sharia propaganda?
Per the 2012 peer reviewed Spanish research of Barredo et al., the following was determined:
"..."the absence of a significant positive trend in the adjusted insured flood losses in Spain," which suggests, in their words, that "the increasing trend in the original losses is explained by socio-economic factors, such as the increases in exposed insured properties, value of exposed assets and insurance penetration." And they add that "there is no residual signal that remains after adjusting for these factors," so that "the analysis rules out a discernible influence of anthropogenic climate change on insured losses," which they say "is consistent with the lack of a positive trend in hydrologic floods in Spain in the last 40 years." [J. I. Barredo, D. Saurí, M. C. Llasat2012: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences]
Additional EU research that disproves the anti-CO2 propaganda of IPCC-related "scientists":
France - "...Wilhelm et al. (2012) say their study shows that "sediment sequences from high altitude lakes can provide reliable records of flood-frequency and intensity-patterns related to extreme precipitation events," closing with the warning that "such information is required to determine the possible impact of the current phase of global warming." And when this warning is heeded, it is clearly seen that the climate-model-inspired claim that global warming will lead to "an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of such events" - would appear to be just the opposite of what is suggested by Wilhelm et al.'s real-world study..."
Germany - "In light of these several observations -- plus the fact that "most decadal-scale climate-change impacts on flooding (Petrow and Merz, 2009) are small compared to historic peaks in flood occurrence (Mudelsee et al., 2006)" -- Bormann et al. (2011) conclude their report by stating that these significant facts "should be emphasized in the recent discussion on the effect of climate change on flooding." And if this is done, there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the warming experienced in Germany over the past century has not led to unprecedented flooding throughout the country. In fact, it has not led to any increase in flooding."
United Kingdom - "As a result of this multifaceted endeavor, they (Macklin et al. (2005)) determined that "the majority of the largest and most widespread recorded floods in Great Britain [had] occurred during cool, moist periods," and that "comparison of the British Holocene palaeoflood series ... with climate reconstructions from tree-ring patterns of subfossil bog oaks in northwest Europe also suggests that a similar relationship between climate and flooding in Great Britain existed during the Holocene, with floods being more frequent and larger during relatively cold, wet periods."
"...they (Hannaford and Marsh (2008)) state that longer river flow records from five additional catchments they studied "provide little compelling evidence for long-term (>50 year) trends but show evidence of pronounced multi-decadal fluctuations." Lastly, they add that "in comparison with other indicators, there were fewer trends in flood magnitude," and that "trends in peaks-over-threshold frequency and extended-duration maxima at a gauging station were not necessarily associated with increasing annual maximum instantaneous flow."
Switzerland - "Reiterating the fact that "the findings of this study suggest that the frequency of extreme summer-autumn precipitation events (i.e. flood events) and the associated atmospheric pattern in the Eastern Swiss Alps was not enhanced during warmer (or drier) periods," Stewart et al. (2011) acknowledge that "evidence could not be found that summer-autumn floods would increase in the Eastern Swiss Alps in a warmer climate of the 21st century," in contrast to the projections of the regional climate models that have suggested otherwise."
Italy - "Diodato et al. (2008) undertook a detailed analysis of "the Calore River Basin (South Italy) erosive rainfall using data from 425-year-long series of both observations (1922-2004) and proxy-based reconstructions (1580-1921)." This work revealed pronounced inter-decadal variations...researchers write that "in recent years, climate change (generally assumed as synonymous with global warming) has become a global concern and is widely reported in the media." And with respect to the concern that both droughts and floods will become both more frequent and more severe as the planet warms, they say their study indicates that "climate in the Calore River Basin has been largely characterized by naturally occurring weather anomalies in past centuries (long before industrial CO2 emissions), not only in recent years," and that there has been a "relevant smoothing" of such events during the modern era."
Conclusions: Scientific charlatans associated with Big-Green organizations (or in the pay of) primarily rely on the real-world tragedies of severe weather events to push their anti-CO2, anti-job green agenda. Multiple EU studies disprove the green propaganda that climate change (i.e., global warming) is causing floods of greater frequency and size. The actual empirical evidence simply and clearly refutes the bogus green-sharia claims.
Additional severe-weather charts and listing of severe-weather events.
During 2012, the U.S. experienced a hot and dry summer with climate doomsday scientists and pundits claiming it was the most severe ever, and a sure sign of hhuman caused extreme climate change - ooops, wrong again, per NOAA
A select group of climate scientists and weather experts are forever trying to explain each severe weather event as a result of global warming from human CO2 emissions. They, and the usual parade of fame-seeking climate doomsday activists, then state "this is what extreme climate change looks like."
Although 2012 has been a warm year in the U.S. (probably not the warmest based on accurate temperature measurements,though), the claim of the U.S. being in the most severe drought condition ever is blatantly wrong and purposefully deceiving.
The adjacent NOAA/NCDC images (as of August) are of current drought conditions versus the severe droughts of 1988 and 1934. Clearly, the 2012 drought is less severe and less widespread than the previous droughts.
Droughts in the U.S. are not unusual - in fact, almost every year there are bad drought conditions in some region of the U.S. The 2012 drought is no exception and remains well within the normal weather variation experienced before.
Indeed, both the U.S. and the rest of the world have well documented periods of very severe weather in the past that makes the bad weather of 2012 pale in comparison, and such is the case for the summer of 2012.
Conclusions: Any climate "scientist" or weather "expert" who claims that typical severe weather events are examples of human-caused extreme climate change is, simply stated, a liar. The most recent U.S. severe drought is likely not a result of extreme climate change, but instead typical weather variation that the U.S. experiences, which NOAA and the mainstream press have long documented.
The EPA, the IPCC and the USGCRP bureaucrats have erroneously predicted, per their global climate models, that southwest U.S. would become drier with more droughts - the latest research finds that these predictions are result of climate modeling failure
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and multi-agency bureaucrats continue to produce erroneous assessments and misguided advice for policymakers based on global climate models. Computer models, and especially the global climate variety, have been a fountain of bogus predictions for years.
In a new study, experts documented another case of failed of global computer simulations that confirms why these hugely expensive 'big picture' models are pretty much worthless. Counter to the EPA and IPCC's predictions, the southwest USA is actually less likely to suffer from droughts, water shortages, forest fires, agriculture crop failure or insect infestations based on new research.
Why were the tax-payer sucking, big government agencies, soooo wrong? The global climate modelers forgot to tell the bureaucrats that the models did not include the impact of mountains on the climate and the bureaucrats were too stupid and/or lazy to ask - doh!
"A research team...[Gao et al.]...investigated that the differences between how large-scale global climate models and finer-scale regional climate models handled the characteristics of moisture flow in the atmosphere over the southwestern U.S...The regional climate models (RCMs) include much finer scale processes than are included in the global climate models (GCMs). In the Southwest, this includes a finer representation of the complex, mountainous terrain which plays a key role in the regional precipitation processes...compared how the RCMs handled the processes that lead to precipitation across the Southwest compared to how the processes were simulated in GCMs. They generally found that the better representation of the terrain by the RCMs allowed them to generate more future rainfall...result from Gao et al. showing that RCMs generated more future precipitation than GCMs in the Southwestern U.S...RCMs allowed them to better simulate the snow accumulation and ablation at high elevations and consequently “runoff in the Colorado River Basin is less susceptible to a warming climate in RCMs than in GCMs.”" [Yanhong Gao, L. Ruby Leung, Eric P. Salathé Jr., Francina Dominguez, Bart Nijssen, Dennis P. Lettenmaier 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: Global climate modeling failure is the rule rather than the exception in regards to the computer simulations that EPA & IPCC bureaucrats and policymakers rely on. New research regarding a regional climate in the U.S. substantiates the failed predictive capability of global climate models. As a result, these global climate models guarantee massive amounts of government investments being wasted on erroneous climate change impacts, such as more droughts in the southwest U.S..
The latest agriculture research on climate change effects clearly prove that IPCC climate model predictions of looming crop failures are bogus - wheat study result opposite of IPCC fabricated myth
Read here. Without doing any original empirical agriculture research, the IPCC "scientists" programmed their computers to predict that agriculture crop output would decline with increasing levels of CO2 and global warming. Their reasoning behind this prediction was that increased warming would cause evaporation of soil moisture thus producing looming crop failures. The IPCC computer models were wrong, again.
Chinese scientists (Xiao et al.) studying climate change effects on crops performed original agricultural research on winter wheat that grows in two different semi-arid regions. Their results debunked the agriculture myths promulgated by the IPCC.
"...grew wheat in China at several different relatively high elevation sites (1,798 m at Tongwei and 2,351 m at LuLu Mountain), and the artificially increased the temperature up to 2.2ºC. At the Tonwei site, the elevated temperatures increased grain output by over 3% and by up to 6% at LuLu Mountain. Not surprisingly, they write “These findings indicate that an increase in temperature will improve the winter wheat yield at two different altitudes.”...“The results of this study revealed that a 0.6–2.2°C increase in temperature improved the water use efficiency (WUE) of winter wheat plants at both elevations evaluated.”...“It is expected that by 2030 warming temperatures and changes in rainfall will have led to the increase of 3.1% in wheat yields at a low altitudes and of 4.0% in wheat yields at high altitude in semiarid northwestern China, and that by 2050, there will have been the additional increase of 2.6% and 6.0%, respectively, at these altitudes”" [Guoju Xiaoa, Qiang Zhangb, Yu Lib, Runyuan Wangb, Yubi Yaob, Hong Zhaob, Huzhi Baib 2010: Agricultural Water Management]
Conclusions: Climate change effects of increasing levels of CO2 and global warming will enhance agriculture output for many crops, such as winter wheat. In addition, IPCC climate modeling, 'guesstimating,' for global warming impacts has little basis in actual science.
For the global warming alarmist community, the inconvenient facts about droughts is that previous climate change produced more severe and longer lasting droughts
Read here. The historical evidence strongly supports that the severe climatic conditions of the Little Ice Age (pre-1850) produced extreme droughts that often affected Georgia and other locations of the Southeast U.S.
A new study of the U.S. Southeast confirms the known facts about droughts. Pederson et al. found that droughts during the end of the Little Ice Age were more severe and of longer duration than those of the 20th and 21st centuries. In essence, previous climate change, especially during cooler periods, produced more extreme climatic conditions in many parts of the world.
"A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters uses tree-ring proxies to reconstruct drought conditions of the American Southeast from 1665 to 2010. The authors find "The reconstruction shows that the recent droughts are not unprecedented over the last 346 years. Indeed, droughts of extended duration occurred more frequently between 1696 and 1820. Our results indicate that the era in which local and state water supply decisions were developed and the period of instrumental data upon which it is based are amongst the wettest since at least 1665." [N. Pederson, A. R. Bell, T. A. Knight, C. Leland, N. Malcomb, K. J. Anchukaitis, K. Tackett, J. Scheff, A. Brice, B. Catron, W. Blozan, J. Riddle 2012: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The empirical, inconvenient facts about droughts is that they have been found to be more frequent and more severe during cooler climate change regimes.
As this updated climate map reveals, the severe drought condition for Australia during 2011 was essentially non-existent. The IPCC-based climate science predicted more frequent and intense droughts, which has not been the case.
Read here. The Climategate scientists of the IPCC predicted that modern global warming would cause an increase of severe floods, as did the IPCC climate models. But when the science is objectively analyzed and the empirical evidence crunched, this prediction fails as so many before it.
Researchers Hirsch and Ryberg examine the U.S. evidence from a period of 85 to 127 years and conclude there is no significant relationship between the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (that causes modern AGW) and annual floods.
"...shows that flooding has not increased in the United States over records of 85 to 127 years. This adds to a pile of research that shows similar results around the world. This result is of course consistent with our work that shows that increasing damage related to weather extremes can be entirely explained by societal changes, such as more property in harm's way. In fact, in the US flood damage has decreased dramatically as a fraction of GDP, which is exactly whet you get if GDP goes up and flooding does not." [R. M. Hirsch, K. R. Ryberg 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists, and other taxpayer funded alarmist scientists, have long predicted that global warming would cause catastrophic crop failure leading to mass starvation.
Unfortunately for the left/liberal alarmists, this 2011 growing season's bumper crops are again proving how wrong the United Nation's IPCC and climate alarmist predictions are - their constant prediction failure is simply a systemic characteristic of the embarrassingly feeble AGW-CO2 hypothesis.
"These people think you're stupid: We're supposed to ignore all those "bumper crop" reports and believe that trace amounts of CO2 are devastating world food production"
As the year 2011 is turning out to be a good year in terms of agriculture, the below charts clearly demonstrate the agricultural abundance that "global warming" has delivered to U.S. farmers since 1959. And, as this empirical evidence (corn, rice, soybeans and wheat yields) reveals, the feared global warming has actually proven to be a boon to feeding the world's hungry.
(click crop yield charts to enlarge - data source:)
Obviously, warming is good for food; and, more significantly, alarmist climate scientists and the United Nations have been robustly wrong, with significant consistency.
Read here. Often it is heard that recent drought conditions in various western and southwestern areas of the U.S. are unprecedented. The implications are that these drought conditions are a result of human-induced global warming (climate change) and are more extreme than ever. Science findings, however, do not support the label of "unprecedented."
Gray et al. studied streamflow attributes for several Colorado river tributaries and found that earlier extreme drought conditions were likely worse than those of the modern era and persisted multiple times longer.
"...derived millennial-length records of water year (October-September) streamflow for three key Upper Colorado River tributaries -- the White, Yampa and Little Snake Rivers -- based on tree-ring data they obtained from seventy-five preexistent chronologies for a number of sites scattered throughout the region, where each chronology was derived from average annual ring-widths...report that "as in previous studies focused on the Upper Colorado River system as a whole (e.g., Meko et al., 2007)," their sub-basin reconstructions "show severe drought years and extended dry periods well outside the range of observed flows." Although they note that 1902 and 2002 "were among the most severe in the last ~1,000 years," they state that "pre-instrumental dry events often lasted a decade or longer with some extended low-flow regimes persisting for 30 years or more." In addition, they indicate that their research "shows anomalous wetness in the 20th century..." [Stephen T. Gray, Jeffrey J. Lukas, Connie A. Woodhouse 2011: Journal of the American Water Resources Association]
Read here. This is a webcam picture of an area smack dab in the middle of a "drought crisis" that government scientists claim is happening.
The image reveals another example of the lengths to which taxpayer funded scientists will push climate change hysteria in order to protect their funding and jobs.
Everything that government climate scientists states as "truth" should really be examined for veracity. And as the reporting of global temperatures indicate, bureaucrat scientists are up to their necks in global warming fabrication and other climate corruption shenanigans.
Read here. Droughts are a frequent visitor to the southwest U.S. and Mexico regions. The current drought that this area is experiencing is bad but in no way is it as extreme as the droughts that took place during the Medieval era.
As the chart reveals, both the Medieval and modern periods share a characteristic of high incoming solar irradiance. With the increase of incoming solar energy, the result is time spans of frequent and more intense droughts. These more extreme droughts occur naturally and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, including CO2 emissions.
There are some scientists who predict we are entering a stage where 60-year droughts, like those during the Medieval Period, could occur but no one knows for sure. If solar irradiance falls (as it seems to be doing most recently), the modern drought cycle may end.
Woodhouse et al. published this 1,200 year perspective of Southwestern North America droughts:
"The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought in western North America. Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison... Spatially, the mid-12th century drought covers all of the western U.S. and northern Mexico...whereas the 21st century drought has not impacted parts of the Pacific Northwest...The 21st century drought has lasted about a decade so far, whereas the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity...for two decades, 1140–1159 [AD]...In both instrumental and paleoclimatic records, periods of sustained drought in the Southwest have often been concurrent with elevated temperatures. The warmest such episode, in the mid-12th century, was more extensive and much more persistent than any modern drought experienced to date..." [Connie A. Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Glen M. MacDonald, Dave W. Stahle, Edward R. Cooke 2009: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. (h/t Steve Milloy) It seems there is a catastrophic drought in the Somalia and Ethiopia region of east Africa every decade. In 2011, there again is much drought-caused suffering. The typical climatealarmist (and mainstream media) is quick to blame "global warming" for these weather disasters, but empirical-based, objective researchers think otherwise.
A new study by Wolf et al. determines that El Niño dominates the climate patterns in the east African region, bringing alternating periods of flood and drought. This cycle has been happening for thousands of years before any modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, and the natural ENSO pattern will continue to do so.
"Floods and droughts in East Africa are often unleashed by far-away events in the tropical Pacific—the warm (El Niño) or cool (La Niña) phases of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)...waxing and waning of rainfall in eastern tropical Africa in unison with ENSO is nothing unusual and existed already 20,000 years ago, according to a study...Scientists have attributed the severe drying to La Niña conditions that prevailed from June 2010 to May 2011 in the Pacific." [Christian Wolff, Gerald H. Haug, Axel Timmermann, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, Achim Brauer, Daniel M. Sigman, Mark A. Cane, Dirk Verschuren 2011: Science]
Read here. The IPCC and its dreary band of Climategate "scientists" had proclaimed that climate models predicted increased flooding for the U.S. Midwest due to global warming. Empirical-based scientists investigated said speculative claims and found them without merit.
Villarini et al. examined 75 years of flooding for the following states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and Illinois.
"In an effort to determine if Upper Midwest U.S. floods have been increasing in recent years..."analyzed the annual maximum instantaneous flood peak distributions for 196 U.S. Geological Survey streamflow stations with a record of at least 75 years over the Midwest U.S."...four U.S. researchers report that in the vast majority of cases where streamflow changes were observed, they were "associated with change-points (both in mean and variance) rather than monotonic trends," and they indicate that "these non-stationarities are often associated with anthropogenic effects." But rather than increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they cite such things as "changes in land use/land cover, changes in agricultural practice, and construction of dams and reservoirs."...they conclude that "there is little indication that anthropogenic climate change has significantly affected the flood frequency distribution for the Midwest U.S." And as they make doubly clear in the abstract of their paper, they say that "trend analyses do not suggest an increase in the flood peak distribution due to anthropogenic climate change."" [Gabriele Villarini, James A. Smith, Mary Lynn Baeck, Witold F. Krajewski 2011: Journal of American Water Resources Association]
Read here. Map source here. As new research is indicating, the majority of scientists now believe that global warming does not cause an increase in forest fires. The latest peer-reviewed study by Wallenius et al. clearly indicates that forest fire incidents in Siberia have declined over past 100+ years.
This finding (and previous ones) contradicts the IPCC and its Climategate scientists' predictions that global warming would cause an increase of forest fires.
"Working in the northern part of the Irkutsk district of central Siberia, in areas "untouched by modern forestry and agriculture," where "population density is low, with less than 0.1 inhabitant per square kilometer," they studied four individual landscapes"...reconstructing their fire histories from fire-scarred Larix and Pinus trees located in 46 different plots...determined that "in the 18th century, on average, 1.9% of the forests burned annually, but in the 20th century, this figure was only 0.6%," while "the fire cycles for these periods were 52 and 164 years, respectively." And they say that "a further analysis of the period before the enhanced fire control program in the 1950s revealed a significant lengthening in the fire cycle between the periods 1650-1799 and 1800-1949, from 61 to 152 years, respectively." And they report that "a similar phenomenon has been observed in Fennoscandia, southern Canada and the western United States, where the annually burned proportions have decreased since the 19th century..." [Tuomo Wallenius, Markku Larjavaara, Juha Heikkinen, Olga Shibistova 2011: International Journal of Wildland Fire]
Read here. The prediction from climate "experts" and climate models was that human caused global warming will result in increased flooding of Germany's rivers. Empirical evidence does not support the prediction.
Bormann et al. analyzed multiple river characteristics, including flood frequency, peak discharge, peak stage and stage-discharge relationships.
"...driven by a desire to help resolve this climate-change impact debate, long time-series of stage and discharge data obtained from 78 river gauges in Germany...first established the nature of Germany's temperature history, noting that Schonwiese (1999) identified a homogenous positive trend of 0.5-1.0°C over the course of the 20th century, which was subsequently confirmed by Gerstengarbe and Werner (2008) and Bormann (2010)...they report that "most stations analyzed on the German rivers did not show statistically significant trends in any of the metrics analyzed.".....there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the warming experienced in Germany over the past century has not led to unprecedented flooding throughout the country. In fact, it has not led to any increase in flooding." [Helge Bormann, Nicholas Pinter, Simon Elfert 2011: Journal of Hydrology]
Read here. The IPCC, its climate models, and the 'Al Gores' of the world have boldly predicted that human-caused global warming would result in a greater quantity of wildfires, including forest fires. The actual empirical evidence, however, does not support that prediction, rather it refutes it.
(click on image to enlarge)
The huge geographic area of Canada and the United States has actually experienced a decline in the number of wildfires since 1970, during the time of greatest modern warming. The chart below shows the count of U.S. wildfires on the left y-axis and the right axis represents Canadian forest fires.
So far in 2011(mid-June 2011), the number of U.S. wildland fires indicate an annual total near the average for the last 10 years.
Note: Wildland fires include all those fire incidents taking place in countryside or wilderness area.
Read here. Big green lobbyists and government paid alarmists are at the forefront of terrifying the public about supposed CO2-induced climate change, especially in mountainous areas. A sentence from a government web site serves as an example:
"Climate change is widely acknowledged to be having a profound effect on the biosphere with many and diverse impacts on global resources. Mountain ecosystems in the western U.S. and the Northern Rockies in particular are highly sensitive to climate change."
Fortunately, there are actual scientists who still practice empirical research, and several decided to examine a major indicator of climate change in the northern Rocky Mountains. They conducted an analysis of stream flow for this area using data going back almost 60 years.
The Arrigoni et al. conclusion? The Rocky Mountains have not been affected by climate change due to greenhouse gases - not so sensitive after all, one could surmise. This conclusion runs totally counter to the prediction of "experts'."
"Climate alarmists claim that CO2-induced global warming will adversely impact the planet's freshwater resources by inducing large changes in global streamflow characteristics...studied discharge data they obtained from 34 stream gauges located in natural and anthropogenically-modified river basins of the Northern Rocky Mountains (USA) over the 59-year interval of 1950-2008, which period, in their words, "covers the majority of reported global climate change due to anthropogenic influences as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report..."changes in climate to date have not been great enough to significantly detect changes in the timing of flows in most natural sub-basins in the Northern Rocky Mountains beyond the natural variability," corroborating the findings of Moore et al. (2007). And as a result, they conclude that "direct anthropogenic modifications of river basins over the past 59 years have been more detrimental to overall river processes and ecosystem health than reported climate change effects in the Northern Rocky Mountains." [Alicia S. Arrigoni, Mark C. Greenwood, Johnnie N. Moore 2010: Water Resources Research]
Read here. It has been well established by the left/liberal lamestream media that 97% of "climate scientists" (that's all of 75 people) take their science lessons from Al Gore, the AGW Nobel prize winner. During 2007 Congressional testimony, Al Gore claimed that "droughts are becoming longer and more intense." As a result, a team of scientists decided to do a fact-check on Mr. Gore's (and his renowned 75 disciples) AGW-science claims. (Okay, okay.....probably Stambaugh et al. didn't give a hoot about Al Gore and the 97%-team.)
This new research determined that the 20th and 21st century droughts have been of little significance when compared to both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age droughts that were incredibly severe.
"The six scientists report that "20th century droughts, including the Dust Bowl, were relatively unremarkable when compared to drought durations prior to the instrumental record." They note, for example, that the 19th century was the driest of the past millennium, with major drought periods occurring from about 1816 to 1844 and 1849 to 1880, during what they describe as the transition out of the Little Ice Age...write that "the approximately 61-year drought in the late 12th century (ca. AD 1148-1208) appears to be the most significant drought of the entire reconstruction," noting that it "corresponds to the single greatest megadrought in North America during the last 2000 years (Cook et al., 2007), as well as "unmatched persistent low flows in western U.S. river basins (Meko et al., 2007)." And this drought, as they describe it, occurred during the middle of the Medieval Warm Period..." [Michael C. Stambaugh, Richard P. Guyette, Erin R. McMurry, Edward R. Cook, David M. Meko, Anthony R. Lupo 2011: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology]
Read here. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have seen their daily reporting essentially become shrill propaganda pieces, pushing the latest left/liberal/Democrat partisan agenda, no matter how unprofessional and idiotic. Unfortunately for the public, this same mindset, plus a dose of significant anti-science attitudes, has invaded their science reporting also. Latest example is Justin Gillis' ("I-hate-real-data") article on global warming and food production.
Either because of extreme stupidity, or the typical left/liberal anti-science approach, Justin contends that food production has slowed and can't keep up with demand, which "scientists believe" is a result of global warming. Like most "journalists" of the left, real facts and data are irrelevant for Justin:
"Today's New York Times has an article by Justin Gillis on global food production that strains itself to the breaking point to make a story fit a narrative. The narrative, of course, is that climate change "is helping to destabilize the food system." The problem with the article is that the data that it presents don't support this narrative...But this claim of slowing output is shown to be completely false...Far from slowing, farm output has increased dramatically over the past half-century and on a per capita basis in 2009 was higher than at any point since the early 1980s...Completely unmentioned are the many (most?) scientists who believe that evidence is lacking to connect recent floods and heat waves to "human-induced global warming." In fact, the balance of evidence with respect to floods is decidedly contrary to the assertion in the article, and recent heat wave attribution is at best contested. More importantly, even in the face of periodic weather extremes, food prices -- which link supply and demand -- exhibit a long-term downward trend, despite recent spikes...Even the experts that Gillis cites don't really support the central thesis of the article."
In conclusion, this NYT's article is another example of fraudulent science reporting by the Times, which is entirely indicative of their partisan, left/liberal propaganda approach to modern "journalism" (honestly, is it a surprise to anyone that their readership has cratered over the past 10 years?). In addition, most scientists now believe that Justin Gillis is incapable of accurate science reporting and is too dumb to be connecting the dots of the "evil global warming" scare-mongering.
Update: Another NYT's anti-science column re: global warming.
Read here. IPCC predictions that global warming would cause less rainfall across Africa has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong.
A peer-reviewed study examining the precipitation amounts in the country of Zimbabwe over a 100+ year period determined that median, minimum and maximum amounts were unaffected by the "global warming."
"..."author writes that there is increasing concern in southern Africa about the possible decline of rainfall as a result of global warming," with some studies claiming that "average rainfall in Zimbabwe had declined by 10% or 100 mm during the last 100 years" and stating that this phenomenon was "due to global warming."...utilized rainfall data obtained from 40 observation stations with records beginning as early as 1892 and ending in the year 2000...researcher reports that rainfall records for the 1892 to 2000 period at the 40 stations in Zimbabwe do not demonstrate evidence of changes in median, high or low rainfall during the early part of the rainy season, the mid-to-end part of the rainy season, or the whole year, noting that "other studies in Africa and Zimbabwe (New et al., 2006; Conway et al., 2008; Aguilar et al., 2009) made the same conclusion."" [Dominic Mazvimavi 2010: Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences]
Read here. Over the historical past and throughout the 20th century, India suffered from many devastating droughts and famines. Recognizing the importance of rainfall to the sub-continent, the IPCC predicted that global warming will cause a decreasing trend in rainfall for India, potentially leading to even more dangerous droughts and famines. The latest peer-reviewed research though finds the IPCC prediction to be all wet.
Kumar et al. reviewed precipitation records over the period from 1871 to 2005. In summary, there was no significant trend for rainfall across India during this period of "unprecedented" warming that the IPCC contends was wreaking rainfall havoc on India and the world.
"In the words of the three researchers, "half of the sub-divisions showed an increasing trend in annual rainfall, but for only three was this trend statistically significant." Similarly, they state that "only one sub-division indicated a significant decreasing trend out of the 15 sub-divisions showing decreasing trend in annual rainfall." In terms of monthly rainfall during the monsoon months of June to September, they found that "during June and July, the number of sub-divisions showing increasing rainfall is almost equal to those showing decreasing rainfall," and in August they say that "the number of sub-divisions showing an increasing trend exceeds those showing a decreasing trend, whereas in September, the situation is the opposite." In addition, they report that "the majority of sub-divisions showed very little change in monthly rainfall in most of the months," while "for the whole of India, no significant trend was detected for annual, seasonal, or monthly rainfall."..."In every way that the data could be analyzed, Kumar et al. could find no hint of the decrease in rainfall that the IPCC had suggested would occur over India..." [Vijay Kumara; Sharad K. Jainb; Yatveer Singha 2010: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Read here. Bozo climate predictions appear to be the IPCC's raison d'être, which they definitely excel at. The latest bozo climate prediction found to be erroneous is that global warming, due to human CO2 emission increases, will cause more precipitation, thus causing more floods of greater frequency and intensity. Fortunately for the world, the IPCC is wrong again.
Bouziotas et al. determined with 50+ years of empirical evidence from 119 stations that the frequency and intensity of floods has not increased and may actually be slightly decreasing. (click on image to enlarge)
"Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."..."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." ["Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."....."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." [Dimitris Bouziotas, Georgios Deskos, Nikos Mastrantonas, Dimosthenis Tsaknias, Grigorios Vangelidis, Simon-Michael Papalexiou, and Demetris Koutsoyiannis 2011: European Geosciences Union]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have predicted that global warming would increase the occurrence of floods on one hand, and on the other hand, warming would increase the frequency of droughts. As with most IPCC predictions, peer-reviewed research typically finds the IPCC predictions to be flops.
Scientists Korhonen and Kuusisto analyzed Finnish rivers and lakes to determine if IPCC prediction had validity.
"The authors write that "annual mean temperatures in Finland increased by about 0.7°C during the 20th century," citing Jylha et al. (2004), while noting that under such a warming regime, "both droughts and floods are expected to intensify," which is the claim of climate-alarmists the world over.....the peak of spring flow has become 1-8 days earlier per decade at over one-third of all studied sites." However, they say that "the magnitudes of spring high flow have not changed." On the other hand, low flows, in their words, "have increased at about half of the unregulated sites due to an increase in both winter and summer discharges." Nevertheless, they indicate that "statistically significant overall changes have not been observed in mean annual discharge."" [Johanna Korhonen and Esko Kuusisto 2010: Hydrology Research]
Read here. IPCC's Climategate scientists and big government funded alarmists have claimed that atmospheric CO2 increases and "associated" warming will cause more frequent extreme dry (drought) and wet (flood) periods. The latest research, however, clearly documents that extreme dry and wet periods have naturally occurred over thousands of years, with larger shifts starting about 1000 years ago - well before the growth of CO2 levels.
The takeaway point: the level of CO2 is completely irrelevant in terms of climate change, as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Nelson et al. shows. h/t WUWT (click on image to enlarge)
"The researchers analyzed a sediment core from Castor Lake in north central Washington to plot the region’s drought history since around 4,000 BCE and found that wet and dry cycles during the past millennium have grown longer. The team attributed this recent deviation to the irregular pressure and temperature changes brought on by El Niño/La Niña.....“Western states happened to build dams and water systems during a period that was unusually wet compared to the past 6,000 years,”...“Now the cycle has changed and is trending drier, which is actually normal..."...Analysis of the sediment core revealed that the climate of the Pacific Northwest fluctuated more or less evenly between wet and dry periods for thousands of years.....since around 1000 AD, these periods have become longer, shifted less frequently, and, most importantly, ushered in more extreme conditions.....The change in cycle regularity Abbott and his colleagues found correlates with documented activity of El Niño/La Niña."[Daniel B. Nelson, Mark B. Abbott, Byron Steinman, Pratigya J. Polissar, Nathan D. Stansella, Joseph D. Ortiz, Michael F. Rosenmeier, Bruce P. Finney, Jon Riedel 2010: PNAS]
Read here. Using the standard IPCC's Climategate "scientific" methodology, we have concluded that large human CO2 emissions directly cause fewer severe droughts. This must be the case since no other known factor(s) could possibly be responsible for less severe droughts in the southern region of South America. /sarc.
Per the Minetti et al. peer-reviewed study:
"...the presence of long favorable tendencies [1901-2000] regarding precipitations or the inverse of droughts occurrence are confirmed for the eastern Andes Mountains in Argentina with its five sub-regions (Northwest Argentina, Northeast Argentina, Humid Pampa, West-Centre Provinces and Patagonia) and the inverse over the central region of Chile." From the middle of 2003 to 2009, however, they report "an upward trend in the occurrence of droughts with a slight moderation over the year 2006." Last of all, they note that the driest single year periods were 1910-11, 1915-16, 1916-17, 1924-25 and 1933-34." [J. L. Minetti, W. M. Vargas, A. G. Poblete, L. R. de la Zerda and L. R. Acuña 2010: Theoretical and Applied Climatology]
Read here. Map source (click on image to enlarge). The sad record of failed IPCC and Climategate scientist predictions of global-warming caused disasters continues. Climate alarmists have been predicting that a warming climate will provoke increased flooding, due to a warmer atmosphere holding increased water moisture.
Scientists, Czymzik et al., analyzing 450 years of data from Germany, found the IPCC's increased flooding prediction to be the total opposite of reality. Instead, it was determined that colder climates have a greater frequency of floods.
"...the authors write that "assumptions about an increase in extreme flood events due to an intensified hydrological cycle caused by global warming are still under discussion and must be better verified," while noting that some historical flood records indicate that "flood frequencies were higher during colder periods.....The six scientists determined that the flood frequency distribution over the entire 450-year time series "is not stationary but reveals maxima for colder periods of the Little Ice Age when solar activity was reduced," while reporting that "similar observations have been made in historical flood time series of the River Main, located approximately 200 km north.....As time marches on and as ever more studies of this nature are conducted in Europe and elsewhere, it is becoming ever more clear that the climate-alarmist assumption -- as Czymzik et al. describe it -- of "an increase in extreme flood events due to an intensified hydrological cycle caused by global warming" is simply not correct." [Markus Czymzik, Peter Dulski, Birgit Plessen, Ulrich von Grafenstein, Rudolf Naumann, Achim Brauer 2010; Water Resources Research]
Read here. Fabricated claims by global warming alarmists regarding the frequency and intensity of modern severe weather events has recently seen an uptick as idiot-elites do their thing sans empirical evidence. Despite the MSM pundit fabrications, researchers continue to publish their peer-reviewed findings that clearly indicate current severe weather events are not extraordinary per the past.
The newest research by Stambaugh et al. reveals that historical droughts that occurred in America's corn belt were more frequent, more intense and longer than those that have happened since large industrial/consumer CO2 emissions began.
"...[researchers] used a new long tree-ring chronology developed from the central U.S. to reconstruct annual drought and characterize past drought duration, frequency, and cycles in the U.S. Corn Belt region during the last millennium."....."Of great significance is the fact that the new drought reconstruction indicates that "drought conditions over the period of instrumental records (since 1895) do not exhibit the full range of variability, severity, or duration of droughts during the last millennium.""....."that "three of the top ten most severe droughts occurred within a 25-year period corresponding to the late 16th century." Likewise, they state that "the four longest droughts occurred prior to Euro-American settlement of the region (ca. AD 1850)."....."In fact, the longest drought detected by Stambaugh et al. occurred in the middle of the Medieval Warm Period and, as they describe it, "lasted approximately 61 years (AD 1148-1208)."" [Michael C. Stambaugh, Richard P. Guyette, Erin R. McMurry, Edward R. Cook, David M. Meko and Anthony R. Lupo 2011: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology]
Read here, here and here. The incredible, stuck-on-stupid, global warming causes everything and anything to happen is revealed again by the left/liberal chattering classes. The latest example of progressive idiocy is the claim that recent riots in Tunisia and Egypt are the result of global warming.
"Paul Krugman joins the crowd who think that they can see the signal of greenhouse emissions in noisy, short-term data on food prices, and then construct a chain of causality to the ongoing unrest in the Middle East. Such tenuous claims of attribution have about as much scientific standing as Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was the result of the vengeful wrath of God.....Like Pat Roberson's attribution of Katrina to the wrath of God in punishment for our sins, Krugman's attribution of unrest in the Middle East to the wrath of Climate in punishment for our sins is in one sense just emotive commentary from an uninformed pundit. On the other hand, to the extent that Krugman's views shape policy, they are simply misguided and misleading."
Previous "how to spell stupidity" postings: Part I and Part II. Additional Krugman postings here and here. Conservatives, moderates and independents often wonder why their liberal friends sound sooo stooopid: the answer is K-R-U-G-M-A-N, and other chattering idiot-elites who live and breathe stupidity for their readers, viewers and listeners from the major MSM outlets.
Update 2/9/11: Additional critical analysis of 'stuck on K-R-U-G-M-A-N': here and here.
Read here. The NY Times readership of leftists, progressives and liberals must be one of the largest groups of climate science illiterates in the U.S. Indeed, most of these people get their science from the NY Times, MSNBC, and the likes of Katie Couric, which guarantees a daily dose of hysterical, calamity driven AGW-science. The latest example is the NYT's reporting of the possibility of future droughts in the arid Southwest of the U.S. - basically a large region that is warm and, ahem....dry, much like a desert.
“Scientists See the Southwest as First Major U.S. Climate Change Victim.”
Of course, the entire science referred to in the NYT's article is based on the bogus output of climate models, regarding an area that has been clearly identified to be the "victim" of natural climate shifts to extreme dryness, over ancient and historical eras.
"OK, now read that again. See where it says “12th century?” See where it says “may?” “May” sounds real certain doesn’t it? Now, someone please tell me where all that anthropogenic CO2 came from during the period they describe as being from 900 AD to 1200 AD? Was it all those cars? Jets? Trains? Factories? I think not. Still, there is an effort to tie in a drought that happened long before anthropogenic CO2 to now, when anthropogenic CO2 is supposed to be causing global warming."
Unfortunately, the left/liberal gullibility quotient is high (e.g. autism is caused by vaccines; Madof will make me richer; Obama presidency will bring health-care hope, etc.), and when combined with a self-inflicted devotion to mainstream media science reporting, as found in the NY Times, the AGW-catastrophic science gains traction with the coastal elites. Thus, they come to believe that a dry desert-like region will become the "victim" of being a desert-like region. Yep, that's the extent of the state-of-the-art-science for NY Times' readers.
Read here. The 2010 summer Russian heat wave and resulting forest fires have been claimed to be the result of global warming and climate change. Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists and activist scientists, NASA found these claims to be of little merit.
More importantly, modern heat waves and forest fires in Russia are not unprecedented. These severe weather events happen with some frequency, including the documented severe events of these years (link above for more info):
1298, 1364,1431,1735, 1831, 1839-1841, 1868, 1875, 1885 and 1917
Read here. Every tin-horn, corrupt, developing country leader (and Cancún UN official) claims that human CO2 emissions are to blame for severe weather events. This same claim is also made by corrupt insurance companies and false prophets of the IPCC Climategate science community. Time, and time again, this claim has proven to be false. Yet the AGW climate-liars, stupid billionaires, and the parrots of the MSM, keep repeating it.
Now, another study [Di Baldassarre et al.] just released shows that the modern African flooding damage is not associated with human caused climate change but more likely has been exacerbated by other human influences.
"Based on the results of both continental and at‐site analyses, we find that the magnitude of African floods has not significantly increased during the Twentieth Century, and that climate has not been a consequential factor in the observed increase in flood damage. This is consistent with the results previously obtained.....the intensive and unplanned urbanization in Africa and the related increase of people living in floodplains has led to an increase in the potential adverse consequences of floods and, in particular, of the most serious and irreversible type of consequence, namely the loss of human lives. This can be shown, at the continental scale, by analyzing the dynamic of African population and the most recent deadly floods." [Di Baldassarre, G., A. Montanari, H. Lins, D. Koutsoyiannis, L. Brandimarte, and G. Blöschl (2010)]
Read here. It has become an exceedingly common tactic for global warming alarmists to claim diametrically opposed outcomes from global warming. The classic example of the C-AGW 'crook & liar' pseudo-science is that CO2-induced warming causes both cold weather and warm weather. Another example is the prediction that global warming will cause contemporaneously drought and flood conditions.
Because skeptics possess objective analysis characteristics, combined with rational common sense traits that favor actual empirical science, the predictions of simultaneous drought and flood conditions seemed to be obviously bogus scare-predictions.
And, as so commonly happens, a new peer-reviewed study determines the skeptics' hard-wired bogus B.S. detectors were correct, and the 'crooks & liars' alarmists were wrong, again.
"One of the major tenets of Climate Alarmism is that global warming will lead to the occurrence of both more floods and more droughts. Hence, it is important to check for trends in river flows that may indicate a growing propensity for such to occur; and that is what Zhang et al. did within the Susquehanna River Basin.....Based on long-term continuous daily streamflow records ending in 2006 for eight unregulated streams with record-lengths ranging from 68 to 93 years that yielded an average length of 82.5 years.....The four researchers report there was "a considerable increase in annual minimum flow for most of the examined watersheds and a noticeable increase in annual median flow for about half of the examined watersheds." However, they found that annual maximum streamflow "does not show significant long-term change.".....In the case of the Susquehanna River Basin, however, there is no support for this contention, since increases in minimum streamflow suggest a propensity for less severe and/or less frequent drought. And the fact that annual maximum streamflow shows no significant long-term change suggests there has likely been no significant long-term change at the opposite end of the spectrum, where floods might be expected." [Zhang, Z., Dehoff, A.D., Pody, R.D. and Balay, J.W. 2010]
Read here. Global warming alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists predict all sorts of evil doings because of increased temperatures. A very prominent prediction made to frighten the gullible and the ignorant (liberal/progressives, MSM reporters, Hollywood celebrities, etc.) is that "warming" will have negative impacts on food production. Chinese scientist decided to conduct scientific research to determine the validity of this IPCC alarmist claim.
The Chinese research concluded that in the case of wheat, its production increased from 2.5%-6.0% depending on the actual warming conditions, just the opposite of the 5-10% production decrease predicted by climate models and experts.
"...the Chinese researchers [Xiao et al.] say it has been predicted that "the average temperature in the semiarid northwest portion of China in 2050 will be 2.2°C higher than it was in 2002," and they report that based on the observed results of their study, this increase in temperature "will lead to a significant change in the growth stages and water use of winter wheat," such that "crop yields at both high and low altitudes will likely increase," by 2.6% at low altitudes and 6.0% at high altitudes.....Even without the benefits of the aerial fertilization effect and the anti-transpiration effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, the increase in temperature that is predicted by climate models for the year 2050, if it ever comes to pass, will likely lead to increases in winter wheat production in the northwestern part of China, not the decreases that climate alarmists routinely predict." [Xiao, G., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Wang, R., Yao, Y., Zhao, H. and Bai, H. 2010]
Read here. A National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist, who is seeking more global warming funding from taxpayers for his institution, released a study based on 22 climate models. The climate models in this study erroneously project future drought for heavily populated areas across the globe. Why do we say erroneously? For multiple reasons:
#1. In the most scientific terms we can conjure up - climate models can't predict squat. Both peer-reviewed studies and actual observational evidence confirm the total prediction failures of climate models and "expert" scientists.
#5. This study's specific prediction about drought is completely reliant on the climate models being able to first successfully predict sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and major ocean oscillations (e.g. El Niño). Climate models are unable to do either, as the NCAR scientist admits:
"“Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.” [Aiguo Dai, 2010]
“Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].
Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting changes in the frequency of drought in the future."
As is the usual routine, a U.S. climate scientist using taxpayer funds releases a study that is designed to promote fear based solely on defective climate models. The ultimate purpose of such climate model fearmongering is to assure the billions keep flowing to the climate modeling scientists and research centers. It's as simple as that.
Read here. Global warming alarmists have an amazing propensity to be wrong with their catastrophic predictions. The latest one to get a scientific smack-down is that the maple industry will die in the northeast U.S. because of a warming climate. A new peer-reviewed study finds that the only thing that will change for the maple syrup industry is the date when they actually start "tapping" for the syrup during the winter months.
"Skinner et al. note that “The major finding is that sap collectors will need to get busy earlier in the late winter and spring to adapt to the expected warming winters in the New England states. Through the twenty-first century, the optimal time to maximize sapflow days will advance to an earlier date in the year. By 2100 this change will be nearly 30 days.”.....“Provided the change in the beginning of the sapflow window can be anticipated, the number of sapflow days will change very little through 2100 in the heart of the Northeast U.S. maple syrup production region.....If you are worried that sap producers will be forced to cope with increased climate variability, relax, as Skinner et al. conclude “There is no indication that the year-to-year variability in the number of sapflow days will change substantially through the current century. Current year-to-year variation is a substantial challenge for maple producers; it shouldn’t worsen.”"
Of course, if winter warming in the northeast U.S. area is truly a concern, it would be nice if "unprecedented" or even an itty-bitty warming was really happening. From the U.S. climate agency, we discover that winters in the New England region have been cooling over the last 15 years - at an astonishing minus 11.3 degrees (-11.3) per century rate.