Read here. Of course, since none of the "inquisitive" journalists who get their science from press releases, supplied by federally funded (on-the-dole) climate scientists, would dare to report the actual science, we are fortunate to have real climate scientists do their reporting job for them. In the case of the new NCAR study, it is revealed that their highly claimed, and most expensive, climate model spit out results opposite of what was observed. In the words of climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels:
"So while the observations suggest that our nights are warming faster
than our days, this is not so in the NCAR climate model which suggests
that the days and nights are warming up at the same rate. Such a model
error leads to the model grossly overestimating the frequency and
intensity of future heat waves....Repeat after us—if the models can’t replicate reality (for the right reasons) they can’t reliably predict the future."
For past climate model wrong-way predictions and fiascoes, read on here, because you can't read or hear about the climate model failures from the mainstream media press.
Read here. Extrapolating from the CO2 emissions/atmosphere science presented in this article, it can be determined how many years in a row that the world would have to cease using fossil fuels in order to reduce the average global temperature by one degree Fahrenheit - it would take 31+ years of no fossil fuel energy use. In total, civilization would have to reduce CO2 emissions by 1 trillion tons, and since humans only generate 31 billion tons per year, it would thus take over 31 years to reach a 1 trillion ton cut for a measly 1 degree reduction. (The elites and the UN's IPCC are now claiming temperatures will increase 7 degrees if CO2 reduction action is not taken immediately, which means zero emissions will need to be achieved for over 200 years.)
Literally, what the political and MSM elite idiocracy are claiming needs to be done immediately to "save" the polar bears will completely destroy civilization. To reach zero CO2 human emissions, means no coal, no natural gas, no oil and no human fires. And, of course, if even one moderate sized volcano erupts during this period, that 31 years will be increased another 5 to 10 years.
In summary, zero CO2 emissions to reduce temperatures by 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C) within 50 years means the following:
No cars, no planes, no trains, no subways, no fuel powered ships
No modern agriculture, no modern fishing, no refrigeration
No hospitals, no vaccines, no wonder drugs, no operations
No modern law enforcement, no modern fire suppression
No TV, no radio, no movies, no print media, no Internet, no iPhone
No vacations, no recreational activities, no restaurants
No heat generation, no air conditioning
No artificial light (wonderful, go to bed at dark)
This is what the idiocracy of the elites and fanatical environmentalists will force on all humans in order to achieve a minor 1 degree global reduction. They will end the world. Why? Because simply, they are idiots who refuse to take the time to learn and understand the actual science of CO2 emissions reductions and what it means for the future. To save the world for future generations, they will sacrifice the world for future generations - there will be no civilization left as a new Dark Age period will exist.
Finally, instead of 100% CO2 emission cut, we in the U.S. could choose only the 83% cut as proposed by L.Graham-Boxer-Kerry-Waxman-Markey legislation, but what impact would that have on global temperatures? Almost nothing, as it is an insignificant 0.01°F reduction by year 2100. A trillion dollar pain, for no climate gain with a horrendous economic and cultural sacrifice. This is what the idiocracy is proposing.
Why hasn't the MSM (journalists and pundits) reported the actual science of CO2 emission reductions and the impact on civilization? Remember, many consider them the leading idiots of the "elites" idiocracy, and the self-destruction of their own industry strongly supports that view.
Read here. Research done in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, which is "the largest reservoir of warm surface water on the earth and the main source of heat for the global atmosphere" provides evidence that today's temperatures are not "unprecedented" as claimed by climate alarmist scientists and the MSM.
Read here. As a follow up to our previous posting, we wanted to help out the truth-challenged who are blogging on climate change in Minnesota. This meteorologist contributing to the NPR station's blog in Minnesota decided to share with his readers a temperature/CO2 graph he found on the amateur Wikipedia web site, circa the 1990's. Then he turns to the infamous NASA GISS temperature chart that even the 2nd-in-command at GISS distances himself from. As it stands, most experts concur that NASA's temperature charts have serious warming-bias issues.
With that said, let's take a look at the real "global warming" in the U.S. and Minnesota since 1998. These charts are produced at the U.S. National Climate Data Center's web site, as of today. As one can observe, the U.S. is doing huge global cooling and Minnesota has going for it 'global-frigid' conditions (note: don't worry Minnesotians, trends change, and this one will, we hope).
What do these charts say? Well, for one, public radio and TV sources are not even close to being reliable sources of current, accurate information regarding climate change and global cooling - literally, don't trust what they "report." (click images to enlarge)
Read here. A blog maintained by the Minnesota Public Radio uses a graph to visually suggest that global temperatures are relentlessly rising, along with CO2 emissions, as the climate models have "accurately" predicted. It's a powerful image that unfortunately is totally disconnected from today's reality. This image, on the left below, shows a temperature record that ends way back in 1990's and provides no clue as to actual relationship between CO2 and global temperatures for past decade. It's obvious that the public radio meteorologist who authored this blog post has an agenda that does not include sharing the actual scientific truth, as the below graph (source here) on the right reveals. (click images to enlarge)
Read here and here. The WaPo global warming/climate change reporting has been lame at best in terms of objectivity. For many of us, it's not even worth reading the biased climate science reporting unless we are forced to because of work requirements. At least we now know the source of that bias. How many more reporters/pundits are overtly influenced by Soros? Way too many probably.
See here. Globally, there exists a small group of people who prosper by fabricating fear and hysteria. Below is a graph of news stories tracking 'fears & hysteria' that have been totally blown out of proportion. Global warming, and its cousin climate change, are the most recent examples of the 'fears & hysteria' problem that individuals and organizations are pushing to only benefit themselves. If global warming stories were presented on this chart, the 'swine flu' peak would look tiny in comparison.
Finally, if you want to avoid death, stay away from the "Killer Wasps" versus all those truly big MSM scare stories. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. The MSM, and its major science reporters, has a long history of not even achieving a low level of objectivity and honesty in their global warming and climate change coverage. As an example of this low standard of reporting, a 2009 major climate condition has gone totally unreported (as of October 27, 2009) by the mainstream media - Antarctica is not melting - as global warming alarmists claim. Thank goodness though, the Revkin's of the world are reporting Arctic polar science in a much more complete and serious manner. For most citizens, this type of "reporting" by the press has become a joke, which has not reflected well on the major news outlets. (click image to enlarge)
Read here. Download from here. Apocalypse sea level rise due to global warming is alarmists' and MSM's favorite scare-hype. Actual science estimates (not virtual climate model estimates) predict very little sea level rise of 9 inches with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2 inches.
Read here and here. "Science" reporters have a penchant for reporting that Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will soon collapse into oceans, resulting in flooded coastal areas and drowned islands. Experts say collapse is not only nonsense, it's impossible for for some very basic science reasons.
[For a brief summary of this important news story go here, or visit here to follow additional information links of importance.]
The most important story in global warming science (possibly in all of science) this past week has been the discovery that tree ring research used to produce the well publicized IPCC "hockey sticks" is totally bogus. The end result of this news.......
Read here. While the scientific evidence (not simulated model results) continues to pile up that that the globe faces a global cooling period for next 10 to 30 years, here's the star "science" reporter of Washington Post repeating non-scientific speculation ("estimates") of the world's leading scaremongers. Just two weeks ago, a top IPCC climate modeler dropped a bombshell and told the world that global warming is kaput. Is she unaware of this, or is she allowing herself to be used by über-alarmists, or is she really just this dumb? Your pick.
Read here. Although recent satellite measurements indicate sea level rise has stalled, the natural state of affairs for the last 16,000 years is a rising sea. Despite ludicrous MSM daily hype, it's a "move along now, nothing to worry about" science fact.
Read here and here. Two things to remember: One, CO2 levels in the past were multiple times higher than current levels and they did not turn the oceans into "acid," nor kill ocean/sea life. Two, all the world's known fossil fuels could be burned and still not turn the oceans acidic. Additional C3 Headlines on this subject here.
Read here and here. The usual suspects, AP and NYT, hype the Arctic global warming scare angle instead of discussing the actual history and science particulars. Plus, minimizing the advanced technology angle that makes the difficult possible.
Read here. The below are satellite temperature maps of lower atmosphere. The left map is August 2009 and the right, August 2004. The blue areas of the maps signify non-warming areas. Note that the blue areas, non-warming regions, dominate across both maps. We've been told warming is global, which obviously is not true despite politician and MSM claims. (click to enlarge images)
Read here. Which species extinctions have occurred during last 50 years? Ever seen an actual list from a MSM journalist of all these extinctions? Neither have we, and none of us will. Totally bogus lies and fabrications from uber-biased (moronic?) reporters.
Read here. The "world is going to die because of global warming" blogger at Washington Post keeps throwing-up the ludicrous Gore-trite and is mentally eviscerated in the process. This is accomplished without his even realizing it - the numbskull just keeps coming back for more. Amazingly, the 'dummie' can't seem to grasp that the IPCC is solely a political organization that does no scientific research or testing; and, by referring to it as the "Nobel Prize-winning U.N. IPCC" to vouch for its scientific rigor, the giggles become guffaws. Dude, the "Nobel" was for "Peace" not a recognition of science achievement. Not even the Nobel committee is that dumb.
Honestly, is it any wonder why the MSM has lost the majority of its audience.
Read here. Reporter claims Greenland ice mass loss is over 300 gigatonnes per year, when it's actually been trending about 12 gigatonnes/year. Of course, if he was correct, there would have been a noticeable world sea level rise but that has not happened. And, the fact that Antarctic ice mass growth offsets Greenland's loss is conveniently glossed over.
Read here. It ain't so. Scientist lays out simple facts that disprove CO2 causes global cooling, as the same facts also disprove global warming - two peas in a pod, so to speak. Basic, logical science thought process that the MSM just can't seem to grasp - there's a good reason they aren't called 'rocket scientists.'
Read here and here. Advice for elites sitting in their A/C chilled boxes, terrified about catastrophic global warming: Turn off your TV; stop reading the 'terrified-twins', Krugman & Friedman; and start reading Climate Depot on a daily basis. And be assured, it's safe to go outside.
Read here. Why does the public believe global warming is "unprecedented"? Because the IPCC, a large number of government-bribed climate researchers, environmental fanatics, and the mainstream media relied on a single study of historical temperatures that was later found to have used error-causing statistical methods. As seen below, the scientific peer-reviewed consensus is just the opposite of that single study. (click to enlarge)
1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.
2) Other scientists deride the Idea.
3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.
4) Academics debate Idea.
5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don’t
6) General Public ignores the Idea. (click below to read read rest)
Not reported by mainstream press: Using robust methodology, expert analysis finds Waxman-Markey proposed 'cap & trade' legislation will reduce global temperatures by 0.05C (five one-hundredths of 1 degree centigrade).
Previously, we did a primitive, back-of-the-envelope calculation of U.S. going to zero CO2 emissions, immediately, and found global temperatures would be reduced by all of 0.15C (fifteen one-hundredths of 1 degree centigrade) over next 100 years.
Readhere. Do science publications pushing hype & fear have an influence on politicians?
Over the past week, Obama has stated he fears"cataclysmic" hurricanesdue to global warming, which is so stunningly stupid it begs the question if Joe Biden really is his scientific advisor. In addition, his administration is now actually claiming that the natural substance we exhale, CO2, is "toxic," which has even the most even keeled of climate scientistsbesides themselves.
Climate alarmist scientists and mainstream media reporters have gone out of their way to portray to public that the current 2009 Wilkins ice shelf breakup is "unprecedented" and due to global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth, since ice shelf breakups occur with regularity and have nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Ice shelves naturally grow; crack; breakup; and melt. **The below images of the always 'here and then disappearing' Wilkins ice shelf from late 2003 and early 2004 reveal this natural development, which is not unprecedented.
H/T: Global Warming Science blog - go here for a lot more information on this subject.