The climate-doomsday cult has long stated that coastal areas of the world are being swamped by accelerating sea rise due to rapid "global warming"...fortunately, skeptics of global warming alarmism have been proven right by the latest empirical research....
EU researchers analyzed multi-mission satellite records in a new study and determined the following:
1. A huge bulge in the Western Pacific is responsible for much of the past "global" sea rise.
2. Since 2002, sea level rise has greatly decelerated.
3. Globally, on average, sea levels are currently increasing at a 2.31 mm/year rate (that's a 3.2 inches by year 2050 rate).
This research confirms what other scientists have already recently found by analyzing tide gauge records around the world.
For example, a group of scientists examined sea level rise around the North Sea. What they discovered was an absence of evidence confirming the doomsday predictions of soon-to-be submerged coasts.
==> "Based on their analysis of all the available data, the four researchers determined that "linear long-term trends in the Inner North Sea (1.6 mm/yr) are similar to global trends (1.7 mm/yr) but smaller in the English Channel (1.2 mm/yr)." And they report that "although the recent rates of sea level rise were high, there is no evidence yet that sea level rise has accelerated over the last decades in the North Sea region.""
A 1.7mm/year increase converts to a 2.16 inch rise by 2050AD and for the English Channel, 1.2mm/yr equals 1.8 inches by 2050.
Conclusion: Ahhh...those damnable stubborn facts. By 2100, and certainly 2050, the North Sea coastline (and others across the globe) will retain its majestic beauty, still existing as it is known today. Thus, proposed trillion dollar tax hikes and higher price schemes for fossil fuel usage are a total waste since lower cost adaption techniques can be effectively implemented to deal with the such meager rises the world likely faces.
#climate2014 #peoplesclimate Much angst and ink has been spent on the "catastrophic warming" of world's northern latitudes...yet when the scientific research is accomplished that alarmist warming screed appears to be without much merit.....
Canadian researchers analyzed temperature datasets from a total of 146 weather stations with goal of determining temperature extremes across the nation.
The researchers found the following:
1. Warming is stronger during the nighttime hours.
2. Warming is stronger in the winter months.
3. Warming is stronger in the Arctic latitudes.
4. Warming is strongest for extreme low temperatures.
"The scientists' conclusion was the following: "Overall, our results are consistent with those reported in previous studies, particularly in the sense that Canada has become much less cold but not much hotter."
In other words, most of the warming took place at the lowest temperatures; during the coldest hours; at the coldest regions; and during the coldest seasons.
And this peer reviewed finding confirms what many other regions of the world have experienced: global "warming" is not about ever hotter maximum temperatures, it is more about the warming of the coldest temperatures (i.e., warmer minimums).
The consistent failure of the IPCC's climate models is widely recognized by the scientific experts...the models inability to predict future climate scenarios accurately is partly a result of thousands of key failures, including their being unable to simulate the asymmetry of ENSO....
Besides the current crop of IPCC climate models failing due to their being CO2-centric, the models also suffer failure from the thousands of sub-simulations they are required to perform.
It is known that there exists a major asymmetry of the El Niños versus the La Niñas. If climate models can't accurately simulate this asymmetric relationship it makes for poor global climate predictions.
Scientists published a recent study to determine the success of modeling the ENSO asymmetry - the results were not encouraging.
===> "With respect to their findings, Zhang and Sun report the following: (1) "the underestimate of observed positive ENSO asymmetry measured by skewness is still a common problem in CMIP5 coupled models," (2) "all the models are also found to have a weaker ENSO asymmetry than observations," (3) "CMIP5 coupled models have a significant cold bias in the mean sea surface temperature," (4-6) "biases in zonal wind stress, precipitation and subsurface temperatures ... are also too symmetrical with respect to ENSO phases," (7) "sea surface temperature warm anomalies over the far eastern Pacific are found to be weaker in the coupled models than in observations," (8) "most models also have a weaker subsurface temperature warm anomaly over the eastern Pacific," (9) "most models have a weaker precipitation asymmetry over the eastern Pacific," (10) "most AMIP models have a stronger time-mean zonal wind over the equatorial central and eastern Pacific," and (11) they "underestimate the observed positive skewness of zonal winds in the central Pacific.""
Conclusion: The multi-billion $$ climate models have proven time and again that they are incapable of predicting future climate with any level of accuracy. Policymakers would be best served by completely ignoring the computer simulations as they poorly match the empirical observations of the global and regional climates. However, the models still hold value for the researchers, but that is their only benefit.
Obama and his ilk fervently believe the South Pole is melting, soon to drown America's coast lines with a rising sea level...or, maybe Democrats are just pathological liars determined to scare Americans into voting for even bigger government...regardless, both the scientists and satellites document how wrong the liberal-left-greens are.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Science is based on research and empirical evidence, not on speculative guesses or those "likely" predictions from computer simulations.
Over the last few decades, the IPCC and its computer climate models have speculated that Antarctica was melting due to all the human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere.
CO2 emissions that were producing accelerating and dangerous global warming that was being "amplified" across the South Pole.
Democrats, the mainstream media and green progressives have continuously repeated these flimsy, fear-mongering predictions as science "truth," representing the mythical "consensus." Yet, they conveniently ignore the actual hard empirical evidence and real scientific research that the American public has paid for.
Case in point:The South Pole
A brand new peer-reviewed research study conducted by MIT scientists confirm what NASA's satellites have documented (see adjacent chart) - Antarctica is cooling. Ahem...those inconvenient stubborn facts just hurt, no?
"By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula [C3 Ed: approximately 4% of Antarctica land mass]...Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased.....In other words, the authors find that most of the Antarctic continent has cooled, rather than just the Southern Ocean..."
Note: Chart plots and trends produced using Excel. South Pole temperature anomaly dataset source (since inception date used). CO2 dataset source.
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.""
The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.
Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.
Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."
Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.
Latest peer reviewed research determines that recent sea level rise along the coasts of northern Europe and the English Channel are within historical bounds experienced during the 19th and earlier 20th century periods.
Per the scientists from Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the actual empirical evidence points to a potential sea level rise by 2050 AD of 2.1 inches for the North Sea coast and 1.6 inches for the English Channel.
"In light of the findings of the international team of scientists participating in this significant study, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the rate of sea level rise throughout both the North Sea and the rest of the Global Ocean over the entire CO2-emitting course of the Industrial Revolution."
In summary, this study does not support the irrational, unsubstantiated current claims and predictions of sea level increases made by prominent GWN's who rely on projections from the discredited climate models. The recent and past sea level increase facts reveal the totally absurd and irresponsible, anti-science speculations of 36 to 120 inch rise for coastal waters.
The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...
(click on image to enlarge)
Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.
And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.
====> "Here we present[Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."
A new peer reviewed study based on an analysis of megafossil tree remains documents the indisputable conclusion: it was warmer during both the Roman and Medieval periods - ergo, extreme climate change can happen without human involvement.
The above plots (click each plot to enlarge) of ancient tree lines from previous research provides ample evidence that indeed climates were warmer prior to human CO2 emissions. This new research examines 455 radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils from Scandinavian region.
that mega-fossil analysis is the only methodology that can "accurately document the existence of a certain tree species at a certain spot and at a certain point of time in the past."
indicates that "summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present,"
that "the pine tree line was about 100 m higher than today (i.e., early 21st century) c. 1940 and 1300-930 cal. years BP," while noting that "the same applies to birch by c. 1700 and 1300 cal years BP," which clusters "represent the Medieval and Roman times."
that "these temperature anomalies were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age."
that "the emergence during the past two millennia of at least two short-term tree line and thermal excursions to higher than present levels (i.e. early 21st century) indicates that the current performance of the ecological and climatic systems is well within the envelope of the natural variability
that "the pine tree line (and summer temperature) was consistently higher than present ... during the Roman and Medieval periods, c. 1900 and 1000 cal years BP."
Note: Doing a search of the internet did not result in finding a definition for 'megafossil' yet a definition for 'microfossil' was readily available. For purposes of this posting, megafossil refers to fossilized material that can be viewed with the naked eye.
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)
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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
The empirical evidence is irrefutable, no longer debatable.
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Period, also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
In all cases, across both hemispheres, the large, natural climate changes took place without any human CO2 influence.
This means that natural climate change is caused by other factors that are of either earthly or (and) cosmic/solar origins.
It's been a very bad week so far for the alarmists devoted to the global warming and climate change hysteria.
Their green fundamentalist, anti-CO2 religion looks about ready to explode in their collective faces.
First, the World Federation of Scientists (10,000 strong) announced that there is no crisis or threat to human civilization from climate change.
Second, a new study was released that provides additional proof that since the late 1970s, the Earth has received much more solar energy than previously thought...that solar impact would be multiple times more powerful than the concurrent human CO2 impact.
Third, another new study determines that CO2's impact has been minor compared to the impact of a natural cooling Pacific Ocean, due to a natural oscillation named ENSO - as the prominent climate scientist said: "My mind has been blown by a new paper..."
And fourth, in another new study, scientists confirmed that climate models way overestimated global warming for the last 20 years because.....wait for it.....the models are likely unable to simulate natural climate variation correctly.
Using sediment cores from two lakes in the Qaidam Basin of the northern Tibetan Plateau, Chinese researchers reconstructed temperatures back some 2,000 years.
Their research was unequivocal: modern warming has been cooler than past warming periods. They also confirmed that the climate naturally made shifts between warm/cool regimes. Plus, the climate shifts appear to be associated with solar activity.
Note: Historical temperature charts and previous climate-history articles.
The IPCC's climate models and multiple government climate "experts" have proven time and again that they are completely unable to make reliable predictions of global climate attributes - this time, the climate reality wake-up call finds Australian government scientists to be wildly wrong regarding their "accelerating" sea level predictions
(click on image to enlarge, image source, temperature data)
As has now become well established, climate experts and their climate models have done an abysmal job at predicting global temperatures. This spectacular prediction failure has led to even greater failures for predictions of multiple climate attributes, including global sea levels.
A new study has analyzed the sea level prediction capabilities of Australian government experts and found extreme prediction failure, which is another resounding testament to the gigantic waste of climate research billions over the last few decades.
"In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
(1) The official Australian claim of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally. Rather, it seems strongly contradicted
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future." [Nils-Axel Morner, Albert Parker 2013: Environmental Science]
1. Expert climate model predictions of catastrophic accelerating sea level increases are wildly wrong
2. CO2-centric climate models that focus almost entirely on the impact of human trace emissions of greenhouse gases produce erroneous and unreliable predictions for policymakers
3. The IPCC and large government computer climate models can't predict squat
Note: Chart has 36-month average HadCRUT4 global temperature curve (#7 maroon) superimposed.
Anti-science alarmists and pro-global warming ('AGW') scientists are very enamored with multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, which allows "researchers" to statistically blend and torture different forms of data to force a "confession" that modern warming has been "unprecedented" - however, as expert skeptics have discovered, these studies are often found to be empirically and statistically-challenged garbage and end up being a cornucopia of unintended contradictions...the new PAGES2K paleo-torture study is the latest example
The new Kaufman et al. study (aka as the 'PAGES2K' research) is getting its initial web-wide forensic review in multiple articles across the web, including here, here, here, here and here.
The two images above are derived from one of the study's own charts (see the Bob Tisdale article).
The chart on the left depicts those areas of the world that experienced modern warming supposedly greater than any warming over the last 2,000 years; and, the chart on the right represents those areas where modern warming was less than that of certain periods during the past 2,000 years. Both charts have the past 2,000 year atmospheric levels superimposed (the pinkish curve) on them.
It is from the Tisdale analysis that it first becomes apparent that the law of unintended consequences has interestingly come into play - the study's authors have actually built a case (be it likely an unforced error) that supports the views of the majority of catastrophic global warming skeptics/lukewarmers.
From the study itself, and a close review of the above images, we now know the following:
First, as even the New York Times points out, this study determined that the Arctic was warmer during the 1940s to 1970s than during years of the late 20th century. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Greenland ice core data, modern warming is still below peaks of the Medieval & Roman periods.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Second, the study determined that periods prior to 1000AD had warmer temperatures in Europe. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Third, this study finds Antarctica was warmer, from the 2nd through 13th centuries, than during our modern era. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Vostok ice core data, modern warming is still below the peak temperature between 1AD and 1000AD.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fourth, this study points out that true global warming has not taken place in the modern era, but regional strong warming has. Of the 7 regional areas analyzed, only 3 exhibit a strong warming (more likely only 2, see point #11 below). The other four regions, not so much. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fifth, the study clearly indicates that major climate change is taking place at all times, in different manners, across the globe. Climate change is not some new modern phenomenon. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Sixth, the study shows atmospheric CO2 levels are not a cause of past major climate change. Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, CO2 levels are stable yet climate change is constantly happening. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Seventh, the study documents that unprecedented regional warming takes place regardless of low/high atmospheric CO2 levels.Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eighth, this study, in combination with the known recent global temperature trend (subsequent to this study's ending date of 2000AD), clearly makes an indisputable case that recent modern global warming is not as claimed: unprecedented; unequivocal; irrefutable; irreversible; nor dangerously accelerating. Confirms view of skeptics.
Ninth, this study affirms that periods of "unprecedented" warming do not cause the IPCC's urban legend of "runaway," "tipping point," dangerous global warming. Of course, the hottest period ever recorded (Minoan era) in the ice cores over the last 4,000 years already proved that the mythical "tipping point" is just that. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Tenth, this study again provides proof that the AGW-alarmist researchers will use each and every attempt to remove and/or minimize the exceptional Medieval Warming Period that the vast majority of local/regional paleoresearchstudies, and the historical literature, have well documented. It is simply freaking amazing that this group of researchers would present an analysis of Europe's past warming without the extreme and extended warming of the Medieval era (see chart onright). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eleventh, this study clearly proves to the public that the proponents of AGW-alarmism will utilize excessive cherry-picking ofempirical paleo research to fabricate their "scientific" claims of modern "unprecedented" warming. Not only did this study exclude the preponderance of paleo-scientists' research that documents past extreme warming, but this study was brazen enough to include paleo temperature reconstructions that even a peer-reviewed science journal ultimately rejected because of its statistical flim-flam. Without the infamous, widely discredited Gergis et al. study, it is highly likely that the "Australasia" region of the above chart on the left would have to be moved to the chart of the right, above - thus leaving just 2 regions of the world that may have had modern "unprecedented" warming in the 20th century, and only a single region of the world that had "unprecedented" warming since 1970 (recall that this study confirmed the Arctic was warmer from the 1940s to the 1970s). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Conclusion: This multi-cherry-picking proxy study has many claiming that modern temps are the "hottest" across the globe, over the last 1,400 years. In fact, as the above information clarifies, some regions of the world had strong modern warming (that is, supposedly), while the majority did not. As this study itself determines, global warming, cooling and climate change are not done in some lock step manner across the world in a monotonous cause and effect relationship with CO2. Skeptics of both the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria and the elites' CO2-kills fanaticism have pointed this out for years (if not decades). The geological and historical records/datasets support the essentials of the non-hysterical skeptic/lukewarmers' analysis of climate change, and now this study suggests the alarmist community has inadvertently accepted many of the same views.
The IPCC's discredited alarmist global warming propaganda took another serious hit from a major scientific study on the empirical evidence regarding accelerating sea levels - per the study, sea levels, due to natural, long-term oscillations, likely to increase only a scant 9 inches by century-end
The IPCC's refusal to incorporate and/or accept any empirical evidence that is contrary to their climate models' alarmist catastrophe predictions is well known. As a result, the IPCC's scary global warming predictions have been shown to be egregiously wrong and terribly misleading for policymakers.
The anti-science fantasy approach to the IPCC's political-driven "analysis" has suffered another major blow from a new study by Nicola Scafetta. This latest research confirms previous studies about just how wrong the IPCC has been about those "accelerating" sea level increases.
"This is a major paper, which undertakes a comprehensive review of recent studies, which diverge widely in their findings...main reason for divergence is the length of records used in studies, and shows that the quasi-cyclic oscillations of the major ocean basins largely account for the differences in those studies conclusions...it is shown that the periodicity of the major oscillations, being 60 to 70 years, require a minimum record length of around 110 years in order to prevent polynomial fitting of long term secular trends being contaminated with shorter term quasi-cyclic variation. Using tide gauge records going back as far as 1700...compares the trends in sea level rise acceleration at widely spread geographical locations once the quasi-cyclic components are removed and finds the long term global average to be very small – around 0.01mm/yr...study suggests that sea level rise during the C21st [21st century] will be around 277+/-7mm, or about 9 inches." [Nicola Scafetta 2013: Climate Dynamics]
1. An analysis of long-term empirical evidence confirms 20th and 21st sea level increases have been a function of long-term natural oscillation forces.
2. Potential sea level rise by end of century is highly likely to be less than a foot, well below the IPCC's "scientists'" predictions.
3. The IPCC's climate-model alarmism regarding dangerous, accelerating sea levels due to human CO2 emissions is without empirical merit - summarily, an IPCC fantasy.
The anti-science Democrats and left-wing greens absolutely hate the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), due to its invalidation of the modern CO2 global warming-climate change hypothesis - no matter their extraordinarilylame corrupted/bogus attempts to prove otherwise, the objective empirical evidence continues to confirm the MWP was an uniquely extended warm era
In another fascinating exposé of climate science flim-flam produced by yet another group of academia climate-quacks, Steve McIntyre has the adjacent chart embedded in his article.
This chart represents a 5,000 year span of temperature variation in the Arctic region (Ellesmere Island) per peer-reviewed research . To add context, we superimposed the atmospheric CO2 levels (mauve curve) from the last 2,000 years.
Several very obvious conclusions can be drawn that gut claims by anti-science alarmists and quacks:
1. Climate change is a science-proven constant.
2. Periods of global warming and global cooling happen frequently
3. The Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the modern era
4. Temperatures changed regardless of CO2 levels
5. CO2, be it natural or human, is not the globe's "thermostat"
Finally, per the HockeySchtick blog, it is known that the essentially barren Ellesmere Island had temperatures some 2 to 3 degrees higher than current temps, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions of our modern consumer/industrial era.
The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is on verge of collapse as non-existent warming facts force unpleasant admissions of truth - and, the empirical evidence implicates increasing clouds as being the culprit for the halt of warming
This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.
The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.
As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.
Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.
The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).
Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):
“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979
to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and
high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds
appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1
percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the
black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]
#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.
#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely
#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.
#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.
#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.
Climate change and global warming/cooling are the constant factors of Earth's history regardless of human CO2 emissions - a new study confirms that unprecedented Medieval and Roman period temperatures in the New Mexico area were significantly warmer than current
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. The empirical research for the unprecedented temperatures during the Roman and Medieval periods continues to build.
As this chart depicts, the New Mexico region of the southwest U.S. experienced considerably warmer temperatures than those of the modern era.
As can be seen, extreme climate change took place frequently in the past, well before any influence of humans on the landscape and the atmosphere from CO2 emissions.
A paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs climate change in central New Mexico, USA over the past 12,800 years and finds mean annual temperatures were ~1°C warmer than the present during
the Roman Warming Period 2,000 years ago, the Medieval Warming Period
1,000 years ago, as well as during other unnamed warming periods in the
past. The paper also shows cold periods were relatively wet, and warm
periods relatively dry, the opposite of the claims of climate alarmists.
Furthermore, the paper shows that mean annual precipitation today is
neither dry nor wet in comparison to the precipitation extremes over the
past 4,000 years. [Stephen A. Hall, William L. Penner 2012: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
UK and U.S. left-wing agenda "scientists," associated with the IPCC fraudulent hockey-stick affair, attempted to dictate to other scientists that the Medieval Warming Period was an isolated phenomenon only experienced by the Europe/North Atlantic region -- most paleo-climate researchers rejected the lame arguments of the IPCC authors and continued to find non-European regions that experienced the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), including Obama's birthplace
Nope, we're not speaking of Obama's first birthplace, the one before he decided to run for U.S. president, although Kenya does have a warm and humid climate.
Instead, the research was done in the Hawaii area, the newer birthplace of Obama after his U.S. Senate election. Specifically, the study was done at the scenicKealia Pond, Maui.
These scientists wanted to determine what impact the MCA had on the tropical island, where the UN's IPCC scientists had claimed there was no impact. As scientists dedicated to the scientific truth, they ignored the IPCC's dictates (i.e., flimsy reasoning) and pursued their research.
"Based on "high-resolution palynological, charcoal, and sedimentological analysis of a sediment core from Kealia Pond, Maui, coupled with archaeological and historical records,"... Pau et al. developed "a detailed chronology of vegetation and climate change since before human arrival."...Most pertinent was the three researchers' finding that "a shift from dry to wet climate conditions marked the beginning of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) as evidenced by a precipitation reconstruction based on a pollen abundance index." They note, for example, that over the 2500 years of their record "there have been two major climatic events: first the MCA (AD 800-1300), followed by the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850)."...In the case of the early inhabitants of Maui, Pau et al. write that "an increase in forest resources during this wet climate interval coincided with rapid Polynesian population growth," which suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity for them..." [Stephanie Pau, Glen M. MacDonald, Thomas W. Gillespie 2012: Annals of the Association of American Geographers]
Regardless of which falsehood of Obama's birthplace one chooses to believe, there is no choice concerning the truth regarding the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Its impact has been substantiated by reams of empirical research and peer reviewed articles. The Medieval Warming Period impact was immense, stretching across the entire world, even touching the tropical islands of Hawaii.
The statistical fabrication known as the "hockey stick" has been thoroughly discredited as being proof that modern global warming is unprecedented - adding to the growing empirical evidence that the "hockey stick" was bogus, a new study of Scandinavian temperatures reveals the greater warmth of both the Roman and Medieval Periods
Read here. As several new 2012 studies of the Arctic and Antarctic regions have determined, modern warming is not unprecedented versus the Medieval and Roman periods.
The current research coming out of the polar regions is confirmed by a group of European scientists utilizing the latest research technology in a non-polar region.
As can be seen, this new research from Esper et al. is depicted adjacent - clearly, summer temperatures during the Roman period, sans consumer/industrial human CO2 emissions, were significantly warmer than the current period.
"The authors developed 587 high-resolution wood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris (scots Pine) trees of northern Sweden and Finland to form a long-term maximum latewood density (MXD) record stretching from 138 BC to AD 2006, wherein all MXD measurements were derived from high-precision X-ray radiodensitometry...And in comparing their results with the earlier temperature reconstructions of others, they say that their MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction "sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology,"...the four researchers state that their new temperature history "provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth."[Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank 2012: Global and Planetary Change]
Conclusions: As the irrefutable empirical research mounts, it is becoming untenable for politicians, regulating bureaucrats and taxpayer funded scientists to maintain the falsehood that modern global warming has been unprecedented. The latest objective, scientific research from across the world confirms that modern warming is not unusual, nor dangerous. In addition, the preponderance of new research indicates that both the Roman and Medieval Periods were warmer.
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.
In contrast to the crazed, paranoid, lefty-loon rants of an obviously disturbed, anti-science journalist, what do actual scientists say about global warming....let's summarize with a favorite...
Read here. It is well known that climate doomsday journalists have a serious aversion to actual empirical evidence and ignore the overwhelming amount of new peer-reviewed studies that seriously challenge their anti-science, green-religion belief system about global warming.
And now comes a new study by a huge international team of scientists, Niu et al, that points out an inconvenient scientific truth. The world's ecosystems (plants, animals and microbes) indeed prosper within warmer climate regimes - they successfully adapt and evolve with higher temps.
"In introducing their huge collaborative study, the sixty-eight authors say "it is well documented that plants, animals and microbes acclimate and/or adapt to prevailing environmental conditions in a way that can optimize their functioning under varying temperatures, which is collectively termed optimality...say they found that "the temperature response of NEE followed a peak curve, with the optimum temperature (corresponding to the maximum magnitude of NEE) being positively correlated with annual mean temperature over years and across sites," and they say that "shifts of the optimum temperature of NEE were mostly a result of temperature acclimation of gross primary productivity (upward shift of optimum temperature)...they indicate that "extended growing seasons, increased nitrogen mineralization, and enhanced root growth may also have contributed to the increased CO2 uptake under higher temperatures, leading to the upward shift in the optimum temperature of gross primary productivity in warmer years."" [Shuli Niu, Yiqi Luo, Shenfeng Fei, Wenping Yuan, David Schimel, Beverly E. Law, Christof Ammann, M. Altaf Arain, Almut Arneth, Marc Aubinet, Alan Barr, Jason Beringer, Christian Bernhofer, T. Andrew Black, Nina Buchmann, Alessandro Cescatti, Jiquan Chen, Kenneth J. Davis, Ebba Dellwik, Ankur R. Desai, Sophia Etzold, Louis Francois, Damiano Gianelle, Bert Gielen, Allen Goldstein, Margriet Groenendijk, Lianhong Gu, Niall Hanan, Carole Helfter, Takashi Hirano, David Y. Hollinger, Mike B. Jones, Gerard Kiely, Thomas E. Kolb, Werner L. Kutsch, Peter Lafleur, David M. Lawrence, Linghao Li, Anders Lindroth, Marcy Litvak, Denis Loustau, Magnus Lund, Michal Marek, Timothy A. Martin, Giorgio Matteucci, Mirco Migliavacca, Leonardo Montagnani, Eddy Moors, J. William Munger, Asko Noormets, Walter Oechel, Janusz Olejnik, Kyaw Tha Paw U, Kim Pilegaard, Serge Rambal, Antonio Raschi, Russell L. Scott, Günther Seufert, Donatella Spano, Paul Stoy, Mark A. Sutton, Andrej Varlagin, Timo Vesala, Ensheng Weng, Georg Wohlfahrt, Bai Yang, Zhongda Zhang and Xuhui Zhou 2012: New Phytologist]
'C3' Conclusions: So, who you going to believe about global warming? The anti-science, lefty-loon doomsday fanatics like Al Gore and David Appell, or 68 expert scientists regarding thermal optimality and our favorite optimist, Bobby McFerrin? We conclude the latter group to be a better indication of climate reality and outlook. The green anti-science zealots really need to stop and smell the roses every once in a while, and be thankful how both life and climate have improved since the Little Ice Age - a suggested therapy for their miserable attitudes should include listening to "Don't Worry, Be Happy" at least 3 times per day, which will hopefully dull the catastrophic-fear paranoia edge they continuously live on.
Catastrophic global warming skeptics have long said that climate research agencies and the IPCC were overstating the amount of global temperature increase due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect - skeptics were just proven correct in a new Turkish study
Read here. This image portrays the impact that dense urban areas can have on local temperatures. This is the UHI effect, which can literally stretch for miles causing regional temperatures to be higher. The UHI effect has nothing to do with greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2 emissions).
One means to determine the impact of UHI, plus confirm the influence of greenhouse gases, is to analyze and compare the minimum daily temperatures for urban areas versus the rural areas. If greenhouse gases have little impact on temperatures, than the rural daily minimum temperatures should reveal a a zero to slight increasing trend.
Turkish scientists, Ozdemir et al., did this type of comparison for temperature readings across the Anatolian Peninsula.
"Focusing on cities having over half a million inhabitants representative of urban conditions and much smaller towns representative of rural conditions - all of which also possessed continuous high-quality temperature data from 1965 to 2006 - the authors studied the four-decade trends in daily minimum air temperature at each location...the eight researchers report that "statistical analysis of daily minimum temperatures for the period between 1965 and 2006 suggest that there is no statistically significant increase in rural areas." However, they say that all of the urban sites, as well as the differences between urban and rural pairs, show significant increases in temperature, indicative of a strong urban heat island (UHI) effect over the region. In fact, as they describe it, the average "urban station is over 4°C warmer than rural."" [Huseyin Ozdemir, Alper Unal, Tayfun Kindap, Ufuk Utku Turuncoglu, Zeynep Okay Durmusoglu, Maudood Khan, Mete Tayanc, Mehmet Karaca 2012: Theoretical and Applied Climatology]
'C3' Conclusions: This Turkish study confirms what previous UHI effect studies have found: rural areas are not experiencing an increase in temperatures due to greenhouse gases. Because the dataset used to calculate global temperatures is dominated by urban and airport locations, overstating global warming has been the result. The UHI effect has never been adequately removed so as to provide an accurate picture of CO2-induced global warming. Simply put, to accurately determine actual global warming from greenhouse gases, only rural climate stations, based on the state-of-the-art USCRN technology and standards, should be used for the land surface global temperature dataset.
The recent evidence is overwhelming that climate models are completely ineffective at predicting global temperatures, and newer research confirms they have serious problems properly simulating major component/regions of the globe's environment
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. New research on the accuracy of climate models regarding the modeling of the Southern Ocean region reveals major issues.
The Weijer et al. team identified the following concerns:
"The nine researchers state that "the CCSM4 has varying degrees of accuracy in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Ocean when compared with observations," some of which we list as follows: (1) "the seasonally ice-covered regions are mildly colder (ΔSST > -2°C) than observations," (2) "sea ice extent is significantly larger than observed," (3) "north of the seasonal ice edge, there is a strong (-4°C < ΔSST < -1°C) cold bias in the entire Pacific sector south of 50°S and in the western Australian-Antarctic Basin," (4) "positive biases (1° < ΔSST < 4°C) are found in the Indian and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean," (5) "significant differences are found in the Indian and Pacific sectors north of the ACC, with the CCSM4 model being too cold (< -2°C) and fresh (<-0.3 psu)," (6) "AABW adjacent to the Antarctic continent is too dense," (7) "North Atlantic Deep Water is too salty (>0.2 psu)," (8) "in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, north of 50°S and below 3000 meters, the too-salty AABW penetrates northward, resulting in a denser-than-observed abyssal ocean in CCSM4," (9) "the model underestimates the depth of the deep winter mixed layers in the Indian and eastern Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean north of the ACC," (10) "in the southern Tasman Sea and along the eastern Indian Ocean boundary ... the model mixed layer depth is deeper than observed by more than 400 meters," (11) "in all sectors of the Southern Ocean, Model CFC-11 concentrations in the lower thermocline and intermediate waters are lower than observed," (12) "model CFC-11 concentrations in the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) are lower than observed in the basins adjacent to the Antarctic continent," (13) "model surface CFC-11 concentrations are higher than observed," (14) "the production of overflow waters in the Ross Sea is too low by about a factor of 2 relative to the limited observations," (15) "the depth at which the product water settles was also shown to be too shallow by about a factor of 2," (16) "the subtropical gyre of the South Atlantic is too strong by almost a factor of 2, associated with a strong bias in the wind stress," (17) the mean position of the BMC is too far south in the CCSM4," and (18) "the model variability in the position of the BMC is significantly less than observations."
[Wilbert Weijer, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Mathew E. Maltrud, Nicole Jeffery, Matthew W. Hecht, Corinne A. Hartin, Erik van Sebille, Ilana Wainer, Laura Landrum 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusions: The IPCC climate models can't simulate the reality of observed climate conditions. Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.
Climate doomsday alarmists often fabricate extreme climate change scenarios that have no basis in reality - one such scenario is that global warming, from rising CO2 emissions, will make U.S. East Coast winter storms worse
Read here. The vast majority of climate disaster scenarios, which climate doomsday scientists and pundits predict, are never realized. The increasing intensity and frequency of severe storms is one such failed prediction.
The IPCC's political-agenda scientists, and most Hollywood celebrities concurred, that the supposed global warming from human CO2 emissions would produce more severe winter storms ('nor'easters') on the U.S. East Coast resulting in untold devastation and human misery.
Researchers decided to analyze the empirical evidence to determine if the Hollywood and IPCC "scientists" were correct. As this included chart reveals, over the last 55 years, there is no evidence that storm intensity increased despite the huge increase in CO2 Emissions.
"The authors write that "East Coast Winter Storms (ECWS), commonly known as nor'easters, are among the most severe weather phenomena to impact the Northeastern United States,"...defined an ECWS as an area of low pressure with a closed circulation, moving in a general south-southwest to north-northeast direction and containing winds greater than 10.3 m/sec during at least one 6-hour period,"... they calculated the speeds of all ECWS over the 55-year period 1951-2006...researchers report that "the speed of ECWS during their passage over or near the east coast of the United states varied substantially from storm to storm, month to month, and season to season." However,...over the entire time period of their study, Bernhardt and DeGaetano rightly declare "there was no clear trend in ECWS speed."" [Jase E. Bernhardt and Arthur T. DeGaetano 2012: Natural Hazards]
Conclusions: The long predicted extreme climate change from CO2 levels and global warming has not happened. There has not been an increase/decrease of East Coast severe winter storms that would indicate a noteworthy change in existing natural climate variation.
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
IPCC climate doomsday advocates predict all sorts of calamitous, extreme climate change events from human CO2 emissions that seemingly fail to materialize - the lack of increased heavy precipitation events across the U.S. is another one of those failed predictions
Read here. Climate scientists again reviewed the empirical weather evidence to determine if there has been a surge of heavy precipitation events, as predicted by the IPCC and its climate models.
Per the IPCC and its climate doomsday acolytes, human CO2 emissions causes increased warming that causes greater water evaporation, which in turn will increase the frequency and volume of rainfall incidents. Obviously, the increase in heavy rainfall would then likely lead to an increase in flooding disaster incidents. The IPCC's climate models have been programmed to follow that assumption.
Yet when researchers actually check the climate model predictions against weather reality, the IPCC models are rarely correct. Mahajan et al. just determined that to be the case for the IPCC's heavy rainfall prediction.
"Noting that "extreme events of precipitation have a potential for impacting our social and economic activities,"...state that it is "essential to determine if there has been a systematic change in the extremes over the past years and what awaits us in the future owing to global warming," especially in light of the fact that "climate model projection studies suggest that intense precipitation would be on the rise as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gas forcings in the future..."trends in monthly heavy precipitation, defined by a return period of one year, are assessed for statistical significance in observations and Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations over the contiguous United States...report that trends estimated from the two data sources they employed "straddle the margin of statistical significance, and hence a definitive answer to the question of increasing trend of heavy precipitation over the US cannot be arrived at by looking at observational data." And with nearly half (9 out of 20) of the GCMs employed in their study predicting trends that are "significantly different from the observations," they are forced to conclude that "the GCMs are not yet fully capable of simulating extremes of precipitation at a regional level,"" [Salil Mahajan, Gerald R. North, R. Saravanan, Marc G. Genton 2012: Climate Dynamics]
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions, and the supposed global warming, are not causing an increase in heavy precipitation events across the U.S. as predicted. The IPCC's climate models again fail a crucial test when their output is compared to actual weather reality.
Because climate doomsday scientists and activists continue to frighten the hysterical-prone media and bureaucrats, there are now those who consider burning the world's forests to generate electricity to be a viable solution - another questionable proposal from CAGW devotees
Read here. The hysterical fears associated with CAGW belief often leads to bizarre regulations and proposals to reduce and/or eliminate human CO2 emissions.
One such bizarre "green" proposal is to harvest the world's existing forests and burn the wood in power plants to generate electricity. This idea by extreme green fanatics borders on a "sacrificing the patient to cure a speculative disease" type of mentality.
A team of researchers (Schulze et al.) analyzed this bizarre proposal and concluded the following:
"..."such an increase in biomass harvest would result in younger forests, lower biomass pools, depleted soil nutrient stocks and a loss of other ecosystem functions," such that "the proposed strategy is likely to miss its main objective, i.e. to reduce GHG emissions, because it would result in a reduction of biomass pools that may take decades to centuries to be paid back by fossil fuel substitution, if paid back at all." In the long run, therefore, they feel that "depleted soil fertility will make the production unsustainable and require fertilization, which in turn increases GHG emissions due to N2O emissions," which ultimately makes the large-scale production of bioenergy from forest biomass, in their opinion, "neither sustainable nor GHG neutral."...they caution that society should fully quantify direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with energy alternatives and associated consequences prior to making policy commitments that have long-term effects on global forests; for they ominously warn "there is a substantial risk of sacrificing forest integrity and sustainability for maintaining or even increasing energy production with no guarantee to mitigate climate change.""
Almost all of the climate doomsday scientists have predicted that coastal areas, such as New York City, would soon be submerged by the rising sea levels - obviously, these hysterical IPCC climate model and "expert" predictions have failed and the Greenland researchers now know why
Read here. The IPCC was long ago charged with the objective of "proving" that greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming. The IPPC also took the lead in the well financed campaign to frighten the world's populace with scary disaster scenarios due to CO2-induced warming.
One such climate calamity that the IPCC (and multiple other doomsday alarmists) promulgate is that the coastal regions of the world would be swamped by the melting polar ice sheets.
However, like all other doomsday predictions, the seas rapidly and relentlessly rising and then submerging areas such as New York City has not happened, and is not even close to happening as the adjacent chart indicates. So, why have the sea level predictions failed so spectacularly?
The experts on Greenland's ice sheet have now discovered that the climate models are entirely wrong about the whole concept of ice sheet melting:
"Danish researchers are calling for the models used it [to] forecast sea level rise to be changed after their research shows that Greenland’s ice-cap is not melting more quickly, but rather in bursts...The group’s research, which has been published this week in the Science magazine, shows that the speed at which Greenland’s ice-cap melts, rises and falls in different periods...Up to now scientists have believed that Greenland’s ice was melting faster and have used the hypothesis in developing many of the climate models that are now used to calculate future sea-water levels.“The bottom line is that it’s not going to happen as quickly as people have feared...”"
Read here. The IPCC prediction that the sea's plankton are at survival risk because of ocean acidification has gained much attention in the mainstream press. But does this prediction have scientific merit?
The Nielsen et al. team of researchers decided to investigate if the prediction was sound in terms of science.
"The authors write that "the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising, and models predict that by the end of the century it will have increased to twice the amount seen at any given time during the last 15 million years," stating that "this will cause a decrease in average surface water pH of 0.4," while noting that planktonic protists will be among the organisms to be affected first by this change."..."tested whether reduced pH would affect plankton communities over an incubation period of 14 days."...researchers determined that nutrient uptake and photosynthetic parameters "were all unaffected by pH treatments 8.3-7.7," treatments that they say "match the predicted 21st century changes in CO2 and pH." In addition, they found that "cellular carbon and total particulate organic carbon were both completely unaffected by pH treatment within this range," and that "the same was true for the succession of all 25 enumerated protist species." [Lasse Tor Nielsen, Gustaaf M. Hallegraeff, Simon W. Wright, Per Juel Hansen 2012: Aquatic Microbial Ecology]
Conclusion: As multiple scientific studies have now shown, the ocean acidification hysteria is just that. Marine life seems extremely capable in its adaptive abilities, such that the risk from lower sea pH levels due to excess CO2 is tiny. This is also now true for the world's plankton communities in spite of the IPCC's prediction.