Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
It is now an indisputable fact that the IPCC's "dangerous", "accelerating" and "tipping point" global warming has gone completely AWOL. This has been well documented empirically, as this temperature chart through October 2013 reveals.
Does this now mean global warming is kaput, in permanent hibernation? Nope.
But it does mean that the IPCC's climate scientists were wrong about future global warming, and that the consensus is now changing due to actual climate reality.
Serious discussions about global cooling have become the reality, much to the chagrin of climate "experts" and IPCC cohorts who have wasted multi-billions on the global warming hysteria.
The scientific pivot to cooling confirms what many have thought and said over the last few decades: human CO2 emissions do have a warming influence on global temperatures but, with that said, it is a minor factor that is easily overwhelmed by both solar/cosmic and natural earthly forces. Apparently, the CO2 impact is so weak it is unable to stop this unexpected (by the IPCC) cooling momentum that could wreak havoc on agriculture and economies.
The adjacent plot (click on chart to enlarge) of global HadCRUT October temperature anomalies from two different periods clearly documents the minor impact of human CO2 emissions.
The IPCC claims that since 1950 global temperatures have been driven by the massive human CO2 emissions. Yet when one examines the October temperature records, it is found that the last 64 years of global warming (1950-2013) is very similar to the global warming pattern for the 64-year period ending in 1949.
The chart's two ten-year moving average curves for the respective periods indicate a similarity that is striking, especially considering that modern human CO2 emissions are many multiples larger than the pre-1950 emissions. Adding to that similarity is the fact that the linear trends for October temperatures are almost the same - only an 18/100ths difference if both trends were extended out the 87 years to October 2100AD.
Indeed, a portion of that small linear trend difference might be due to human CO2 emissions; or, then again, it might be due to the vast urbanization effect over the last 60+ years; or due to the large deforestation that's taken place; or, maybe it's entirely due to the serial fabrication of global warming by the world's climate agencies; or it's even possible that the post-1950 warming was entirely a natural phenomenon - the same as the prior 64-year period experience.
Climate reality and the IPCC's predictions often wildly diverge. The well understood reason for this divergence is simply a result of the UN's political agenda, pushed aggressively by its bureaucrats and sponsored "scientists".
An example of its agenda science is shown in the adjacent plot of actual sea level rise versus 2100AD predictions. (click plot to enlarge)
At the bottom of the chart is the plot of actual sea level rise calculated by Colorado University using satellite measurements. Per this empirical evidence, the sea level trend since 1992 suggest that oceans will rise some 11 inches by 2100AD.
An 11" rise by century-end is definitely not a catastrophe and certainly an outcome that humans can adapt to/cope with. And clearly, it represents a 2100AD level substantially below the IPCC's predicted 24" rise.
The IPCC's prediction not only does not comport with climate reality, other expert research indicates that sea level rise by 2100AD will amount to only a 4-6" increase. Two recent studies, one by NOAA and another by China's experts, represent 'those stubborn facts' that are continually undermining the IPCC prediction fantasies.
When assessing future climate forecasts, it's best to remember that the IPCC's "scientific" reports are climate exaggerations produced by their mandated UN political agenda. Climate science reality is an entirely different animal, though.
As widely documented and reported, global warming has disappeared over the last 15+ years.
While there is no longer any doubt about the lack of global warming, there continue to be attempts by global warming alarmists to prove regional warming in the Arctic continues. Essentially, their attempts are solely based on fabricated guesstimates of Arctic temps with further "enhancement" via suspect statistical techniques.
But as this new, legit scientific study confirms, an analysis of temperature observations establishes that the Arctic climate is no longer warming, and may actually be in a cooling phase since 1998.
The abysmal failure of climate models as tools to predict future climate is well documented.
The vast, multi-billion expenditure on tools that can't accurately predict may indeed further needed climate research, but as for model outputs being a sound foundation for policymakers, they're worthless.
This new study confirms that conclusion. Since policymakers need to thoughtfully plan for changes in future precipitation levels, this peer reviewed research makes it clear computer simulations are inappropriate and misleading tools to base policy on.
As previous studies and data have indicated, sea levels are rising at a very modest rate.
The newest research has determined sea level are only rising one-third as much as predicted by the IPCC - that fraction represents a century-end rise of only 4 inches.
The top chart of actual NOAA sea level metrics was produced by Steve Goddard and it clearly shows that NOAA tide gauge measurements match what the new study found.
As with the exaggerations of "accelerating" global warming, the claims that rapid and dangerous sea level rise are entirely without scientific merit - yep, another bogus alarmist claim fails its validity test.
Not only have the IPCC climate models performed poorly on a global basis, their predictive skill capability on important regional climates approach being abysmal also.
As this new peer reviewed study concludes, the models being used to predict sea surface temperatures for the tropical Pacific have produced results that have standard deviations of some 200% stronger versus observed measurements since the Super El Niño of 1997/98. Not good. Confirms previous studies of climate models.
Essentially, the demonstrably large failures of both global and regional climate models represent a systemic failure created by those consensus "experts."
The Democrats' Obamacare primary initiative has become the big-government joke that keeps on deliverying - daily agony. This incredible, gigantic fiasco provides the addtional proof anyone would need as to why politicians, bureaucrats and "experts" should never be allowed to interfere with such things as the climate, the energy sector, the carbon market, etc.
The Obamacare Headlines From November 4th & 5th:(download updated PDF)
This top plot of satellite global temperatures is scientifically unequivocal (click on to enlarge):
The actual empirical evidence from state-of-the-art measurement technology reveals a global warming spike during the late 1990's (due to the Super El Nino), but after that, essentially zilch.
Thus, for the last 20 years (240 months) the global warming trend of +0.52°C by 2100AD is 'climate insignificant' - a trend that climate scientists certainly don't get excited about.
And when one examines the last 17-years, the satellite global temperature trend becomes slightly less than zero (i.e. global cooling). As a prominent climate alarmist scientist determined recently in a peer reviewed paper:
“There is a lot of noise in the climate system and it is quite possible that the noise can mask the effects of man-made carbon dioxide for a period of time. However if the slope is zero for 17 years, then we cannot blame noise any more but we have to face the facts that we humans do not affect the climate to any great extent.”
The bottom plot of global temperatures confirms the atrocious climate predictions of the IPCC "expert" climate models. This is irrefutable evidence that the consensus climate models can't predict squat and should not be relied upon by policymakers.
Finally, it is well established that Obama and his administration are serial pathological liars (sounds harsh but it is undeniable). This is not only true in the health care and Obamacare policy arena, but is also a common denominator in their climate change alarmist claims.
From NY Magazine: The continuous stream of Obama's purposeful lies that are unrivaled by former White House occupants (and a lot more below the video) H/T
In the U.S., the federal government is proving itself to be exceptionally inept. The roll-out of Obamacare has been an epic failure, once again showcasing the amazing incompetence of Democrats, liberals, progressives and other big government types. It's so bad, even the icon of progressive incompetence, Jimmy Carter, is disgusted with Obama.
Now combine this galactic-sized incompetence with all the Obamacare lies that Democrats and Obama pushed during the 2012 election and the direct result is that real humans get hurt, badly.
With that in mind, below is a list of Obamacare headlines from October 1 through November 3, 2013 - a painful diary of abysmal failure, in chronological order, from the most recent to oldest, documenting big government buffoonery in all its glory.
And remember, these are same inept souls who actually believe they can control and direct the climate.
Government Is Magic: Healthcare.gov showed us that behind all the smoother and shinier designs was the same old clunky government where everything gets done because the right companies hire the right lobbyists and everything costs ten times what it should....A government that can’t build a health care website isn’t likely to be very good at running health care for 330 million people. But the technocrats aren’t so concerned with being good as with being in charge. Posted at by Glenn Reynolds on Nov 03, 2013 at 8:30 am Link
Establishment climate science has been a never-ending cornucopia of fraud, fabrications, misrepresentations and wild exaggerations that multiple skeptics have publicly exposed, much to the chagrin and angst of the anti-science "consensus."
Without much argument from the masses, the climate science "elites" have done a yeoman's job of tarnishing the overall reputation of the science community.
Yet, as much as we complain about the scientific wrongdoings in the climate realm, the same is happening in other research fields. And medical research is likely the super nova of scientific misconduct.
The two images on the left are explained by the above short video clip provided. In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry-picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.
And, this heart-healthy science fraud has uncanny similarities to what has happened in the climate science establishment, as written about in this JoNovaarticle.
The above short video clip is a teaser. The entire Catalyst show episode on heart health can be viewed here - it is well worth one's time. It is a reminder that scientists, in general, should not be trusted at face value.
It's also a warning to those who are worried about cardiovascular disease. Instead of accepting traditional medical advice from "experts", you may be better served doing your own due diligence on the actual science of heart disease causes and potential treatments. A good place to start is here (I own the Kindle version; an excellent, informative and eye-opener read for the layperson).
The fabrication-fraud-like technique of increasing both regional and global warming has many examples, including several that 'C3' has addressed.
It's no surprise then that scientists are also fabricating a faster rate of sea level increase along with higher sea levels.
Basically, this HockeySchtick article reveals that taxpayer funded scientists are literally figuratively cooking-the-books using satellite altimeter data. The accompanying sea level chart depicts the extent of the fabrication-bogosity.
This revelation of (acceptable?) "climate science" at University of Colorado just provides more proof that government supported scientists in climate research should not be trusted, primarily due their clear cut affection for agenda-science.
With climate science, being a skeptic and cynic is proving to be the best approach.
Although science fraud-like-bogosity appears to dominate climate research, the activity of bogus science is not an exclusive to climate science, unfortunately.
Steve McIntyre analyzed the Southern Hemisphere historical temperature information contained in the recent IPCC AR5 report and documents an amazing discovery.
Extreme, absurd cherry-picking that defies objective, impartial science.
In essence, the IPCC's representation of Southern Hemisphere temperature changes is biased with unrelated Northern Hemisphere paleo-temperature datasets; the IPCC ignores established, widely accepted Southern datasets such as Antarctica's ice core evidence, as displayed here (click on image to enlarge).
Not only does the IPCC avoid utilization of the the inconvenient Vostok ice core temperatures that reveal the Medieval Warming period for the Southern latitudes, they chose to use Northern datasets that have been widely criticized for being error-filled and massively manipulated via questionable, non-standard statistical techniques.
Like previous IPCC reports, the AR5 edition obviously shares the agenda-science traits of absurd cherry-picking, gross misrepresentations and ludicrous fabrications, which confirms the accusations that green-alarmists have completely corrupted climate science.
Note: As the chart depicts, the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has exhibited an overall cooling trend over the last 5,000 years, with multiple peaks and valleys. This persistent cooling trend is also evident from the Greenland ice core dataset. While the polar regions share many temperature change similarities, their warming/cooling phases occur during different years/decades with different amplitude - i.e., narrowly speaking, perfect synchronization of polar climates does not exist.
Back in 2008, Climate Sanity did an article about Arctic warming, creating the adjacent top graphic that highlights 14 different peer reviewed studies. (click to enlarge image)
The light pink areas represent large geographical areas where the past Arctic climate, over the last 3,000 to 9,000 years, was warmer than today's.
Recently, 'C3' posted an article regarding 15 studies that determined the Medieval Arctic warming was greater than the current warming.
In addition, the adjacent bottom graphic depicts both past and modern tree lines and permafrost boundaries. This inconvenient empirical evidence confirms that in the past trees were able to grow farther north (due to a warmer northern climate) than our modern period; also, today's permafrost boundary stretches farther south due to a modern climate that is cooler.
Despite this preponderance of empirical evidence and multiple peer reviewed studies about the present and past Arctic climate, a new moss (lichen) study by Miller et al. 2013 makes a bogus claim that today's Arctic temperatures are warmer than the past 44,000 to 120,000 years.
This bogus claim has all sorts of scientific lameness, falsehoods and wild misrepresentations associated with it, as described by experts here, here, here and here.
The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim.
latest study's bogus science affirms, anti-science cherry-picking
remains alive and well in "scientific" circles pushing the discredited catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Just another example of 'the ends justify the means' style of agenda-science.
And BTW, the top graphic does not include the recent Baffin Island icecap study and another Island study using lake sediment cores, which both confirm that the modern Arctic temps are cooler than the past.
The land-needed differential is simply staggering - some 300 to 580 times larger for solar and wind production (see top graphic).
Back in 2009, 'C3' created a similar type of image (see bottom graphic) that depicted how much land was needed to replace all U.S. fossil fuel plants with solar and wind facilities - based on this analysis. As in the UK depiction, the nuclear option (see green dot) land needed is a fraction of the enormous appetite of "leading" renewable solutions.
The stunning stuck-on-stupid green ideology shown in all its wasteful environmental graphic glory.
First, a generic wind stress definition is in order.
surface roughness (i.e., turbulence) as measured by satellite technology, is
referred to as 'wind stress' in climate models. In plain-speak, it is sea surface turbulence, obviously
driven by wind speed and direction, in addition to being impacted by atmospheric density/pressures, sea surface
temperatures, sea buoyancy and currents. Wind stress affects the air-sea heat exchange,
as well as the mixing of carbon/heat stored in the deeper parts of oceans. Wind
stress also has impacts on cloud cover, ocean current circulations and sea ice
In essence, wind stress is a powerful and critical elemental
influence on the world's climate. Thus, to forecast future climate conditions
with any sort of accuracy, it is absolutely necessary to be able to accurately simulate
As this latest peer reviewed scientific research reveals,
all climate "experts" and the IPCC's climate models remain unable to
accurately simulate wind stress on their massively expensive, sophisticated,
complex computer models.
Climate history is replete with peer reviewed research and historical anecdotal evidence that both the Roman and Medieval warming eras were likely warmer than current modern temperatures.
This new study (see adjacent plot) adds to the cornucopia of empirical evidence that natural climate change (warming & cooling) is a powerful force, taking place constantly. This research also confirms the likelihood that our modern warming is more a result of natural forces than greenhouse gases.
Those stubborn facts of natural climate change are without mercy to those who espouse anti-scientific, anti-empirical claims, especially the bogus "unprecedented" claim, no?
As has been noted by publications across the world, the new IPCC AR5 report confirms that the past catastrophic global warming alarmism, relentlessly pushed by the IPCC community, is essentially without scientific merit.
From the editors of the Nature journal comes this scathing comment about the new report:
"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."
And of course, there is the amazing admission in the 'AR5' report that those soon-to-be, just-around-the-corner climate disasters, that were repeated ad nausem over the last two decades, are no longer on-the-table, so to speak.
And adding to the IPCC's misery, the latest scientific empirical evidence is not kind. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are similar to a furnace's "thermostat" or a "control-knob" has proven also to be a pseudo-science claim, which actual scientists now consider an embarrassment best forgotten.
Regarding that "thermostat" claim, the above plot of the satellite temperature dataset confirms that even 3-year CO2 changes have apparently zero impact on on 3-year changes. (As previously noted, the last 15 years of global temperature change has revealed a zero impact from changing monthly CO2 levels during that period.)
This chart also includes a plot of human CO2 emissions in gigatons since 1981. Clearly, the gigantic-sized annual emissions are not affecting temperature change, as measured by the satellites. With that said, the exhibited increasing 3-year change of atmospheric CO2 levels may indeed be a result of growing tonnage of human emissions.
In summary, the IPCC's alarmism climate "science" has been torpedoed by its own report and admissions, as well as being completely undermined by the actual empirical evidence. This has not only been recently recognized by the mainstream press, but now the major scientific journals supporting the "consensus" view have finally taken note.
Note: Datasets plotted in this Excel chart can be located here. The temperature and atmospheric CO2 level plots represent 36-month (3-year) changes (e.g. subtract the September 2010 temperature anomaly from the September 2013 anomaly). The dark black, grey and bright red curves are second order polynomial fitted trends produced by Excel - they are not predictions, but they do indicate the current direction the trends are taking.
National, regional and local politicians/policymakers, and those unelected bureaucrats, rely on the IPCC's climate models (and other similar simulations) to justify and make plans for vast expenditures of taxpayers' dollars to vanquish climate change.
Unfortunately, as this peer reviewed article finds, the latest climate models are absolutely worthless in regards to rational policy-making and expenditures for future weather/climate.
Intuitively, one would expect that after the gargantuan, multi-billion dollar sums that climate modellers spent, their sophisticated computer simulations would now, at minimum, accurately forecast the impacts of incredibly large weather phenomenon that occur regularly, such as the east Asian monsoons. Not so, as this scientific research clearly documents.
More often than not, the biggest, baddest, most complex and expensive models have a long history at abysmal prediction skill.
Objectively, the models
remain good tools for climate researchers to learn from, but they really
can't predict squat when it comes to future climate reality, and should never be used for that purpose.
New research discovers ancient tree stumps that existed under an Alaskan glacier for thousands of years.
The retreating glacier confirms that climate temperatures were much warmer from at least the Minoan period to the Medieval era.
At some point, the climate became cooler and the actual trees were snapped at the stump level, then buried in the glacier's ice for centuries. Finally, the stumps were revealed as the climate returned to warmer temperatures in the rebound from the Little Ice Age.
This actual climate evidence is corroborated by the empirical ice core dataset from Greenland. As the ice core empirical evidence depicts, the ancient periods of the Minoans, Romans and the Medieval era were warmer than the present.
This Greenland evidence also reveals that temperatures have been in an overall cooling phase for the last some 3,500 years, which eventually led to the global glaciers' growth that ultimately would bury trees and forests, such as Alaska's Mendenhall glacier described in this article.
This new research adds to the mountain of empirical evidence and studies that refutes the IPCC's claim that modern temperatures (i.e., global warming) are "unprecedented".
Hmmm...the IPCC climate "science" always seems to be contradicted by those stubborn facts, no?
The principal reason they did not address the temperature empirical evidence, as represented in this plot of the data, is that any rational and objective explanation completely undercuts the shaky foundations of the CO2-AGW hypothesis.
The plotted data clearly shows that the previous modern global warming has shrunk to an insignificant per century rate, and may continue to decrease over the near future. This occurs while the levels and growth of atmospheric CO2 continue a relentless climb.
The IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis - and the entire climate change alarmist community - is getting hammered from all sides by the growing research that points to natural climate variation (ie, oscillations, patterns, cycles) being the principal causes of warming since the 1950s.
The latest evidence is coming from satellites that monitor the world's clouds and energy inflows.
As the adjacent charts depict (information derived from the RSS and CERES satellite datasets) at least one-third of ocean heating could be explained by the simple change in cloud cover over the oceans for a recent 20-year span.
Combine this natural cloud-induced warming with other earthly/cosmic/solar factors, which also would contribute to the modern warming trend, and it does not leave much of the recent modern warming being a direct result of the IPCC's evil CO2 mantra.
It has been widely noted across the entire blogosphere
(and even the mainstream
press outlets) that the IPCC AR5 summary report avoided the very uncomfortable
truth that modern global warming has gone literally AWOL over the last 15+ years, and the associated
IPCC climate models' spectacular failure to predict
this non-global warming environment.
Understandably, the IPCC's political bureaucrats don't
want to shine a light on their previously claimed "irreversible",
"incontrovertible", "irrefutable", "unequivocal",
"indisputable", "relentless", "dangerous" and
"accelerating" CO2-warming that has turned into the unprecedented
The IPCC's lack of analysis regarding this 15-year
"pause" was replaced with an attempt to obscure the current temperature reality with a laughable decadal
analysis. 'C3' previously
commented on the lameness of the IPCC's decadal 'smoke and mirrors' as did others
The IPCC's decadal approach to relied on 'decadal means.'
There are other approaches, including analyzing decade-end
temperatures, decadal-trends as shown
here or by examining the moving 10-year (decadal) periods.
(click on image to enlarge, sources for HC4 and CO2 data)
In this article, we look at the moving decadal spans
since January 1, 1950 through August 2013 (the IPCC states that at least 50% of
the warming is due to anthropogenic reasons over this 764-month period) versus
the previous 764-month period (May 1, 1886 through December 1949) that the IPCC
infers was dominated by natural climate forces.
From the two 764-month periods, it is possible to
generate 645 moving 10-year average data points for both the modern era and the earlier 20th century period. The
above two charts plot the moing decadal data points for both periods.
Per an examination of the 10-year moving averages for
each time span, there are several points of interest, including:
the vast differences between the two period's absolute CO2 levels and growth
rates, the warming characteristics of the two periods are more alike than
ten-year curves, and their respective 2nd order fits, visually share similar
characteristics such that one could easily and safely conclude that the modern warming was simply a repeat of the
earlier period's warming (note: recall,
the IPCC states that the earlier warming was not due to anthropogenic reasons).
10-year moving average curves reveal that both the earlier and modern periods
experienced a cooling phase, then a significant warming phase prior to leveling
out to a plateau (a 'hiatus') close to the end.
warming phase during the modern era was 417 months in duration; the early 20th
century period had a warming phase of 397 months (only a 20-month difference).
on 10-year moving averages, the earlier warming period produced a +0.75°C per century trend, which is not that terribly
different than the modern warming of a 1.16°C per century trend.
modern warming were to revert to the earlier warming trend (after the "hiatus"), by year 2100AD
global temperatures would increase by +0.65°C. In contrast, a continuation of
the modern warming trend would produce an increase of +0.99°C, just one-third
of a degree greater.
comparing the differences between the lowest to highest 10-year average
temperature for each warming period, the modern change was less than one-tenth
modern era's CO2 level absolute increase and linear trend growth were both
approximately 5 times greater than the earlier periods respective values.
the earlier period's degree change per ppm was over 3 times greater than that
experienced during the modern warming.
Obviously, this type of decadal analysis reveals an
abundance of similarities shared by the two 20th century warming periods. In
fact, this analysis makes it clear that over 50% of the modern global warming
could be a direct result of the same natural climate forces that warmed the world
prior to the 1950s.
This analysis also directly contradicts the IPCC's
anti-science terminology ("irreversible", "incontrovertible",
"irrefutable", "unequivocal", "indisputable",
"relentless", "dangerous", "accelerating" and
"unprecedented") used to
describe the modern era of warming. Simply put, none of these descriptors are
accurate - they are without any empirical scientific merit.
Unsaid in this analysis (and the IPCC's) is that portion
of modern warming associated with anthropogenic factors is not exclusively due
to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other anthropogenic forces causing increases
includes a wide spectrum of land-use issues, black soot pollution, 'slash and
burn' deforestation practices, the urban heat island (UHI) effect, poorly sited
climate/weather stations, the egregious fabrication
of modern global warming by governmental climate agencies and other factors.
Finally, this decadal analysis reveals the absolute known
physics of CO2-induced warming: per the actual physics, it has been established
that the climate response (i.e. global temperatures) is logarithmic.
This means that the earlier rises of atmospheric levels (ppm) of CO2 have
a much greater impact on the climate than the later CO2 increases (ppm).
As the charts detail, the CO2 impact on temperature
degrees was 3 times greater during the early warming than the modern warming
(+0.23°C per CO2 ppm
versus +0.007°C per
CO2 ppm). This confirms the actual climate science physics, while at the same time pretty much
demolishing the fears of the totally speculative, failed and unsubstantiated
"positive feedback" physics that alarmists continue to rely on.
The prediction failure rate of the IPCC and global warming alarmists has simply been astounding.
It is highly certain, at least a 95% certainty, that there has never been an organization so inept at predictions.
The latest prediction failure is one that states that as the earth warms, the world's peatlands would release their sequestered CO2. This release would then unleash a climate positive feedback, thus warming the world even further.
As this new study discovered, per the empirical evidence, as the earth warmed, even more CO2 was sequestered in the peatlands - the direct opposite of the IPCC alarmist community prediction. Absolutely zilch positve feedback took place
In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)
The well documented lack of global warming over the last 15+ years has proven to be a major problem for the latest IPCC AR5 report.
In prior reports, the IPCC has utilized short-term warming as proof that greenhouse gases were the cause, and supposedly proved climate model accuracy. But in this report, the IPCC dismisses the latest 15-year period as being too short to rely on.
Despite this dismissal, the IPCC AR5 report does make an attempt to explain why global warming went AWOL. One of the reasons they state is that global warming decided to dive into the ocean depths where it is currently hiding (and somehow also escaped original detection).
The "hiding" excuse has been picked up by mainstream science journalists without their doing any due diligence on the veracity of the IPCC statement or at least reviewing the actual empirical evidence.
"It’s clear science journalists need some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures — not realizing they convert to a mere 0.07C over nearly 50 years (as if we could measure the average temperature of the global oceans to a hundredth of a degree!). Worse, the warming we do find is so small, it supports the skeptical calculations, not the IPCC’s ones."
A number of experts have analyzed the "global-warming-is-hiding" claim and found it to be, at best, laughable. To add to the bogosity, the IPCC and other serial climate-change exaggerators have attempted to hide the real impact of global warming on the oceans by using a 'gazillion-bazillion' Joules to portray the gain in ocean heat.
A common way they have expressed the effect is to state that it has increased by an approximate 2.0*1023Joules (or, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules). But when converted to actual temperature warming, that number, with all those zeros, equates to about a total of +0.06°C to +0.07°C increase since 1955.
Laughable, no? This level of warming is barely even measurable and irrefutably indicates that CO2 emissions have barely impacted the top 2000 meters of the oceans.
The adjacent three graphs (click to enlarge) depict the warming that has occurred in degrees, as well as Joules. For more information about these charts, done by experts, go here, here and here.
And their work is confirmed by no less than NOAA:
"For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."
In addition, the list of articles addressing the IPCC's gross misrepresentation of ocean warming (the "hiding" bogosity) is growing: read here, here, here, here and here.
Note: A 'gazillion-bazillion' is not recognized as a real number. FWIW, a number with 23 zeros does fall between the 'sextillion' and 'septillion' nomenclature. 'Gazillion-bazillion' sounds better though.
Al Gore has often revealed a fundamental dishonesty about catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters. His fantasies have an unfortunate high correlation with absurd disaster movies.
Recently, he became the laughing stock in the science community with his bogus claim of a new hurricane 'Category 6' measurement being added.
That claim was quickly debunked, and now the new IPCC report (AR5) has essentially debunked most of the hysterical climate disaster claims made by Gore et al.
Per climate scientist Judith Curry's analysis of the IPCC's new AR5 report and confirming what others have found:
"But the real issue is this. The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).
The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here). The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century. These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW."
The recent IPCC 'AR5' summary report was essentially an admission of failure for the catastrophic human-induced global warming hypothesis. The admission was blatantly obvious as the IPCC bureaucrats did not deliver an adequate explanation for the last 15+ years of non-warming, plus they were unable to even establish what current climate science believes the critical climate sensitivity measure to be.
As result, the IPCC had to resort to lame, non-scientific descriptors such as "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" that were without meaningful empirical evidence. Below is an analysis of their supposed "unprecedented" decadal warming, that when dissected, is beyond lame. (click on charts to enlarge)
These two graphs plot decades-ending global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The graph on the left represents decades prior to the 1950s, and the second graph, those decades subsequent to the 1960s.
Some observations based on this empirical evidence:
#1. From the decade ending in 1909, there were 4 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher at decade-end (the increase from 1909 to 1919 was indeed very small but nevertheless, it was a warming.).
#2. In the modern era, since 1979, there has been only 3 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher - ergo, the warming prior to the 1950s remains "unprecedented" in terms of decadal duration.
#3. Clearly, the modern era decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) CO2 levels jumped dramatically, approximately 50 points, which is over 6 times greater than the CO2 increase during the pre-1950s decades (1920s, 1930s, 1940s)
#4. If the warming trend of the early 20th century had continued (it didn't) until the end of the 21st century (2099), global temperatures would have increased by +1.92°C; yet despite the huge modern era CO2 spike, if the warming trend represented by the last 3 decades continued (it won't), the increase by 2099 would only be +1.72°C.
#5. The IPCC states that prior to 1950 any global warming was due to natural forces - thus, the +0.41°C decadal increase during the early 20th century was due entirely to natural climate forces.
#6. The IPCC states that the modern warming decadal warming, +0.55°C, was at least 50% caused by humans - thus, it is highly likely that natural climate forces were responsible for the other 50%, say a +0.27°C of the modern warming.
#7. If only half of the modern decadal warming is due to human influences, then it is also likely that the human-caused linear trend would represent a warming rate of only +0.89°C, half the modern 3-decade full-linear trend rate of 1.78°C/century.
#8. Put another way, the pre-1950, the all-natural decadal trend rate of +1.30°C exceeds the +0.89°C modern decadal trend attributed to anthropogenic forces (including land-use, the UHI effect, and of course, greenhouse gases).
#9. If one assumes that the modern decadal warming in reality was simply a cyclical repeat of the early 20th century decades of natural warming, then in actuality, at best, the gigantic increases of CO2 levels were only responsible for maybe a mere +0.14°C increase (+0.55°C - +0.41°C = +0.14°C) over the 3 decades ending in 2009.
Summary: After 7 years of research and billions of dollars on the 'AR5' report, the best that the IPCC can come up with is the thin gruel of "unprecedented" decadal warming, which when examined closely, is a false representation of the makeup, duration and the size of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. Since the last 15 years have proven that natural climate forces simply overwhelm the CO2 impact, the likelihood that modern decadal warming is more a result of natural (non-human) climate forces is the more probable "95% certainty".
Note: Data sources for above Excel charts can be found here.
Then Google adds a huge dose of hypocrisy (and evil, some would say) by spewing ginormous amounts of CO2 emissions for personal pleasure on their fleet of huge private jets.
And by taking advantage of an extremely close arrangement with the Feds, Google avoids paying local taxes on its aviation fleet, unlike other corporations.
To top off their unrepentant, "elite" behavior, the billionaires who own and run Google for some reason need to have average U.S. taxpayers fund their obscene luxury with gigantic subsidies for aviation fuel.
Hmmm....time to break up Google and sever its cozy U.S. government arrangements?
One of the world's "elite" and celebrity scientists, and a major force in global warming alarmism, provided a Twilight Zone interview (details here and here) in Australia.
That interview confirms the worst about most scientists who support the "consensus" science hyping catastrophic global warming/climate change alarmism.
David Suzuki's comments epitomize the vast majority of today's "consensus" scientists in several ways.
First, the ignorance of the actual global warming and climate change science is legendary regarding the "consensus" community, which Suzuki proved in spades. These alarmist scientists eagerly accept future climate simulations as empirical evidence, bizarrely not realizing the model output is 'simulated', not even possibly qualifying to be considered empirical evidence.
Second, Suzuki's reliance on what the "climatologists to tell us" and "wait for the IPCC report" smacks of the fanatical faith in a religion, accepting the priestly proclamations when properly delivered, instead of acting like an actual scientist who thinks about, questions and challenges the orthodox science. One immediately knows that they are listening to a fanatic when these or similar utterances are heard, and unfortunately, the majority of "consensus" scientists say the same.
Third, the fact that Suzuki does not have even possess a sliver of actual, real world climate science reveals a complete utter contempt for the public and taxpayers. It is they who will have to shoulder a multi-trillion dollar burden of changing from a fossil-fueled civilization that Suzuki and his like-minded alarmist-scientist flock proposes and demands.
As with the previous 'Today's Climate Denier-Liar-BSer' personalities, David Suzuki should not be believed or trusted regarding any statement on global warming and climate change. Objectively, anything he says is highly likely to be false. End of story.
Thus, similar to the Imams favored by Islamist jihadists, Gore and Wirth preach hostility and malevolence towards their critics.
At the "Social Good Summit" no less. The obligatory liberal double-standards in full color.
It would appear they hope to again unleash the incredible virulence of the AGW/green true believers. At a minimum, a desire to impose blatant censorship by intolerance - figuratively, the Democrats' version of a public beheading.
Aren't liberals/leftists just so grand, without evil malice, no?
As the actual climate truths and realities are finally being reported by the world's press (Der Spiegel, The Financial Times, etc.), the UN's global warming chief alarmist continues with delusional denial.
Since the UN's IPCC is a political bureaucracy, the political agenda takes precedence over empirical evidence and science objectivity.
·"The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. Since it is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas, science has never been the driving force at the IPCC."
Pachauri's IPCC has literally become the anti-science, denial machine.....providing more proof to a new generation that the United Nations is not to be trusted, ever.
Simply put, the UN has always been about politics and bureaucracy, 24/7, not objective, empirical science.
Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
Recent elections in Australia and Germany have clearly indicated that the public no longer believes the falsehoods pushed by the green-environmental-global warming alarmist community.
Despite the evidence of the public's growing dismissal of alarmism, and the indisputable empirical evidence that the IPCC "climate experts" and their models have been abysmally wrong for a very long time, along comes a "scientist" like Myles Allen, confirming for all that scientific honesty is now at a low point convincingly within the Twilight Zone.
The irrefutable, unequivocal, non-global warming trend continues.
As these graphs reveal, the latest NOAA temperature dataset, through August 31, 2013, confirms that the U.S. and its major crop regions are experiencing a cooling trend. (click on graphs to enlarge)
Note, this has taken place despite the largest 15-year production of human CO2 emissions, ever. Contrary to every single IPCC and U.S. climate model.
Update clarification: The above plots from the NOAA web site are based on moving 12-month periods ending in August (each 12-month period starts with a year's September temperature and ends with the following year's August temperature).
So...what is the cost of reducing global temperatures by a measly one-fourth of one degree?
Well, as can be seen in the adjacent image, it's a ludicrously gargantuan cost for maybe, a tiny, and barely measurable global temperature benefit.
What's the cost of reducing global temperatures to their 1850 level? Go to this simple estimator and enter '0.85' in the second third (from top) yellow box (cell). That will produce a rough estimate of how much it would cost in today's dollars using available technology means.
This simple cost estimator is based on the actual HadCRUT4 annual global temperatures and estimates of historical CO2 emission tons. By knowing this basic information, it is possible to calculate (using plain arithmetic) an approximate value for an increase in temperature caused by a single tonne of CO2.
Indeed, nothing fancy. But it does the job well enough to allow further estimations as to how many CO2 tonnes it takes to change global temperature a specific amount. Then it's just a matter of multiplying all those tonnes (billions to trillions) by a dollar cost/tonne.
With that explained, this estimator allows for two different cost scenarios associated with different approaches to future CO2 reduction.
One method of reduction requires the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, which still appears to be far from viable, either economically and technically - read more here. The cost of this approach is not really known, thus 'C3' used a figure of $500/CO2 tonne, which can easily be changed in the estimator tool.
The other method of reduction is future CO2 emission avoidance. This method is typified by making buildings and vehicles more energy efficient; using renewable energy sources; and/or using natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. We used a figure of $75/tonne that is likely too low, but it also can easily be changed when using the estimator.
By playing with this estimation tool, it quickly makes one aware of those truly stubborn climate facts: regardless of the politics of global warming, the economic and technical costs of lowering future global temperatures are astronomical for producing such a measly impact - ie, benefit.