C3

Tsunami Models, Significantly Less Complex Than Climate Models, Fail Miserably After Chile Quake

Read here. We have been highly critical of climate models as they have failed every major test they have been presented with - simply put, they can't predict and should not be relied on by policy makers. The tsunami models are multiple degrees less complex than climate models and yet they too failed big-time after the major quake off Chile. These tsunami models had just one assignment and they still couldn't get it done. 

All these state-of-the-art models are really state-of-the-joke money machines for the researchers who claim they can actually predict with these modeling techniques, which amount to nothing more than complex spreadsheets on steroids.

And after the tsunami model failures, it didn't take long for excuses to be made and the whining to start for more expenditures - that's a sure money prediction in all these type of events.

""There are all sorts of assumptions that we make in trying to figure out how big the waves are going to be. If we can avoid some of those assumptions, maybe we can do a better job,"...."If this event happened tomorrow, even with this knowledge, we would be forced to do the exact same thing."....Those models could be more accurate if scientists had more deep-water sensors and could build coastal inundation models for vast parts of the Pacific Rim where the topography hasn't yet been well-surveyed [Editor's translation: "give me more money, now"]....Because complete data doesn't exist for every coastal area, scientists must play it safe in their wave predictions, he said...."Even for Hawaii, we only have a forecast for less than 10 locations. We don't have inundation models for every coastal point in Hawaii, and it's the same story for the U.S. mainland,"

Recent Study Indicates "Global Warming" Is Not Causing Tree Lines To Move As Predicted

Read here. New research finds that the tree lines are not moving northward as predicted by global warming advocates and climate alarmist scientists. The research also found that winter temperatures have more influence over tree lines than summer temperatures, a complete contradiction of established "consensus" science.

Since the trees did not advance northward as expected from global warming, this may indicate that the actual warming was overstated by other scientists. A reasonable explanation is that the trees are reacting to more moderate temperature increases than those originally claimed by warming alarmists.

"In a new research, scientists have found that treelines are not universally responding to climate warming by advancing as expected....Treelines are the elevation or latitudinal limits where trees are capable of growth or survival and are considered to be early indicators of climate warming because they are constrained primarily by cold temperatures....Summer temperature is widely considered to be the primary control of treeline formation and maintenance, whereas winter temperatures have previously been considered less critical because of the insulative effects of snow....This study reveals how winter warming has overturned this prevailing view."

Why Has AGW Theory Been Disproven? Based on Actual Scientific Method & Empirical Evidence, The Theory Is Simply False

Read here. Very informative and interesting review of the scientific requirements for validating the correctness of a theory. In a nutshell:

"This means that predictions made by scientific theories are typically conditional and limited in scope—taking the form of a hypothetical assertion stating that certain specified changes will come about if particular preceding events take place. Conversely, if X takes place and Y does not, then the hypothesis must be false."

In the case of the CO2-based AGW theory, what predictions have been made by the theory and what has been the empirical evidence outcome, proving or disproving the theory?

"In this case it must make specific predictions that permit the theory to be falsified. So what are the strongest predictions made by the AGW theory? Let us first identify AGW's primary tenant. That is that human CO₂ emissions are causing Earth's temperature to rise. What are the observed facts?

• Are CO2 levels rising? The evidence seems to indicate that this is true. 

• Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 being caused by human activity? There is some debate over how much is due to nature and how much due to man but let's simply accept this assertion as well.

• What does AGW theory predict should happen as a result of these conditions? The obvious answer is that global temperature should rise."

"In fact, back in 1988, NASA’s in house climate alarmist James Hansen presented a prediction of steadily rising temperatures to Congress. Has this prediction been substantiated, proving that AGW is a valid theory?....Not only was Hansen wrong back in 1988, all the models used by all the AGW proponents managed to miss the leveling off and slight downturn in temperature rise that started in 1995."

"Dr. Phil Jones from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU)....is quoted as saying that for the past 15 years there has been no “statistically significant” warming. Yet the yearly averaged atmospheric CO2 level has continued to steadily rise. What we have here, as Popper showed, is a false theory."

While CO2 Continues Its Relentless Increase, The Great Barrier Reef's Health Improves Markedly

Read here. Contradicting all the global warming alarmist claims and predictions that coral reefs are being killed by human CO2, the world's largest reef is prospering under conditions of higher CO2. Why? First, human CO2 does not harm corals, nor does a slow rise in temperature as experienced by the world since the end of the Little Ice Age. Secondly, if no-fishing regulations are enforced in coral reef areas, the entire coral environment improves, dramatically - this has been known science for many years.

"The results are actually quite impressive. Having a higher proportion of protected areas is good for marine life, it's good for fish and it's good for people who rely on the reef for a living...."

For more information about coral reefs, go here.

More Bogus Hurricane Predictions From "Experts" - Is It Time To Hold Experts Criminally Negligent For Promoting Fraudulent Predictions?

Read here. After years of prediction failures, the experts powered up their climate models to have another go at. After these models kept predicting more frequent and intense hurricanes due to global warming, the actual results (see more here) were stunningly different than predicted:

The past hurricane predictions of the IPCC "scientists" has been found to be embarrassingly bad - 100% of the IPCC statements were found to be wrong.

Why are experts, climate models and the IPCC always so wrong on hurricane and other tropical storm predictions? Simple. The climate models used are worthless as prediction tools but are true perfection for ego-driven public relations, and the need for raising more research funds.

"Despite warnings by scientists that identifying an actual trend in storm variability is impossible due to a lack of reliable historical data, a new report in Nature Geoscience is being cited as a solid prediction of future trends in tropical cyclone activity. The other thing not mentioned is that this research is based on models of questionable accuracy....In it, the authors warn that there is precious little that can be predicted from past data. But this does not stop them from blithely predicting the future based on new “high-resolution” models."

"Once again, climate scientists are predicting future climate behavior based, not on empirical data, but on computer models. They go on to state that confidence in some of their predictions is low “owing to uncertainties in the large-scale patterns of future tropical climate change, as evident in the lack of agreement between the model projections of patterns of tropical SST changes.”

These researchers know that these widely publicized predictions have a very low probability of being correct, yet they are not held accountable for their demonstrably false proclamations. Does that sound far-fetched? Others are starting to think along the same lines.

Here's our prediction (sans model): at some point, a smart group of lawyers will figure out how to structure a class action lawsuit against the hurricane-clowns and their supporting institutions for the billions wasted, not only on the "models" research, but for all the wasted billions spent by businesses to prepare for non-existent hurricanes. Or, maybe it's possible to do a class-action on the mental anguish and fear caused by these false prophets? Or, maybe it will be a few states' attorney generals that go after the deep endowment/foundation pockets that incentivize bogus/fraudulent research. Certainly the FTC and/or FDA wouldn't allow fraudulent predictions like these to made by corporate concerns on any given number of subjects.

The IPCC CO2 Growth Predictions: Manipulated To Create Political Alarm or Just "Out of This World"?

The IPCC's catastrophic global warming claims for most skeptics border on the realm of insanity. In addition, the predictions for global temperatures by 2100 require a certain level of consensus irrationality, such as accepting runaway climate sensitivity due to never experienced positive feedback. Even the most basic predictions that are claimed by global warming proponents are totally out-of-sync with reality. The IPCC's CO2 growth predictions are such examples.

Unless atmospheric CO2 levels jump to a new growth rate immediately, the "Twilight Zone" IPCC climate science will continue to implode. (click on image to enlarge)

How Large Has The Global Warming Impact Been On The Amazon For The Last 7 Decades? Try Zilch

Read here. The global warming alarmists claim that an area such as the Amazon should experience greater frequency of severe droughts and floods. Does any evidence support these claims? A researcher examined the climate history of the Amazon and found no trend of severe events that would support the global warming alarmist predictions.

"With respect to the patterns he uncovered, Morengo writes that they are "characteristic of decadal and multi-decadal modes," which he describes as "indicators of natural climate variability" that are linked to the El Niño Southern Oscillation, "rather than any unidirectional trend towards drier conditions (as one would expect, due to increased deforestation or to global warming)." Hence, in response to what climate alarmists call the unprecedented warming of the 20th century, there appears to have been a total lack of what they predicted should have occurred - in terms of hydrology - in response to this "catastrophic" phenomenon."

Will "Peer-Reviewed" Become Known As The "Science of Idiocracy"? Should Anyone Believe Scientists Any Longer?

Read here. The "prestigious" medical journal, Lancet, has published bogus studies before but their latest admission that the 'vaccines cause autism' study they published (over a decade ago) was not worthy is a real eye-opener. Think about it - how many children have died from this idiotic science because of the fear it instilled in parents about getting their children vaccinated.

Since a major journal has finally taken the correct step to denounce bogus science they published, is it not the perfect time for journals such as Nature, Science and the New Scientist to do a similar and needed housekeeping regarding bogus science associated with the politically correct global warming agenda? Would it really be that hard for the journals to finally recognize (what everyone else knows) the sham that the original "hockey stick" represents and all of its associated progeny? Is it time for the major science journals to reconsider how they conduct the climate science peer-reviewed process so that major data cherry-picking, data manipulation and statistical fraud are recognized and challenged well before these studies get in print?

Obviously, the science journals represent a huge part of the bogus science problem. The "peer-reviewed" moniker has become a joke for the layperson, which certainly is not a good attribute to achieve. But journals are only part of the the problem. Unfortunately, scientists are becoming ever more notorious for publicizing issues and future events as calamitous, sure thing, predicted outcomes that makes it difficult for the journals, let alone the MSM, to ignore. Often the scientists' public relations effort of promoting fear and catastrophe is enough to get the journals interested instead of conducting their efforts in the needed role as skeptics.

Here are some examples of older/newer fears and catastrophes predicted by scientists that should have been exposed as bogus or way too extreme from day one:

 1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798
 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865
 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883
 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928
 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934
 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939
 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945
 8 DDT and cancer 1962
 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968
10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970
11 Supersonic airliners, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1970
12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971
13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972
14 Industrial production and acid rain 1974
15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976
16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979
17 CFCs, the ozone hole, and skin cancer, etc. 1985
18 Listeria in cheese 1985
19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985
20 Salmonella in eggs 1988
21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990
22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996
23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999
24 Mercury in fish effect on nervous system development 2004
25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005
26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008

"None of the 26 alarming forecasts that we examined was accurate. Based on analyses to date, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)."

Does Human CO2 Cause An Increase In Droughts? Peer-Research Provides An Answer: No

Read here. As every celebrity who's managed to graduate from grade-school knows, man-made CO2 will cause droughts across the globe causing all types of misery and suffering, needlessly. These droughts will be more massive and more frequent. But we can stop the droughts if everyone just drove a Prius and the Senators hurried up and voted for "cap & trade" that President Obama really needs to fight those nasty droughts.

Ah....the minds of children, aren't they just precious?

Fortunately, for the rest of us, as with everything else claimed to be caused by CO2 induced global warming and climate change, the scary drought hype is just that: big HYPE.

Recently, industrious researchers went to work to examine the drought hype claims. They identified 296 large droughts across the world between 1950 and 2000. They found that the mid-1950's had the most drought activity, not the end of the 20th century as expected by Al Gore and the celebrities.

"If anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the global warming they are supposed to produce are responsible for catastrophic droughts, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently declared them to be, it seems strange indeed that the global drought activity of the last half of the 20th century was greatest at the start of that period, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures were far less than they were at its end."

Chinese Researchers Connect The Dots: Precipitation Variations Due To Solar Changes, Not CO2

Read here. Global warming alarmist scientists have claimed (predicted) that atmospheric levels of CO2 drive climatic changes, including changes in rainfall/snowfall. The newest research clearly shows that major natural forces, such as solar cycles, are what determines the varying cycles of precipitation levels.

"Once again we have another real-world example of cyclical solar activity controlling the cyclical nature of precipitation variations, wherein, in the words of the researchers who conducted the study, "higher solar output corresponds to a stronger monsoon, which intensifies the uplift of air mass on the high Tibetan Plateau and strengthens the subsidence of air mass over the Qaidam Basin," while "the reverse is true during the period of lower solar output," so that "high solar activity is correlated with dry climate in the Qaidam Basin and increased precipitation in monsoonal areas.""

NOAA Finally Admits That Climate Models Have Been Totally Wrong About Water Vapor: Instead of Increasing, It's Decreased By 10%

Read here. The global warming scientists, major climate research centers, the IPCC, environmental NGOs, and global warming activists and pundits have all claimed that the "robust & rigorous" climate models prove that when human CO2 increases, then global atmospheric temperatures will have to increase, which will then cause surface water evaporation to increase, that subsequently causes water vapor in the atmosphere to increase, which finally sets in motion a positive feedback system that causes all the previous items to even increase more, ad nauseum. Unfortunately, the "expert" climate scientists are now discovering those models might not have it quite right, since atmospheric water vapor is doing the exact opposite of what the climate models predicted! Gee, what a surprise.

"“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study....Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown."

Another UN Agency & Its Models Totally Botch The Science: WHO's Incompetence Rivals IPCC's

Read here. They predicted swine flu mayhem for 2009. Up to 50 million would die, based on their infectious disease models. This prediction was wrong by a huge factor of 3,500 times. Only 14,412 died - that's less than a typical year for normal flu.

"WHO calls swine flu critics “irresponsible.” Kind of like the IPCC calls global warming critics “deniers""...."The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible”...."The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog based in Strasbourg, France, recently recommended that the EU investigate WHO’s swine flu pandemic declaration to see if the health agency acted under undue influence."

This sounds awful familiar to those closely monitoring the hapless IPCC situation. In the bizarro world of the UN, doing science badly and doing corruption well is the accepted modus operandai by world leaders. How else to explain why the UN is still allowed to conduct any serious activities that have real consequences. Cut off their U.S. funding and ship the lot of them to Dubai.

New Hurricane Model May Even Be Worse Than Previous Hurricane Models: Another Xbox Simulation Failure?

Read here. From the "experts" that predicted more hurricanes back in 2005, a group of hurricane modelers create a new model that concludes there will be less hurricanes (about 33% less) in the Atlantic basin, but the number of intense storms will increase by 81% due to CO2-caused global warming. One would hope that these continuous attempts to predict future hurricane activity and intensity would improve, but this new hurricane simulator seems to have some very fundamental problems:

"But a closer look at the results shows that this model-based result is produced by a hurricane model which under-simulates the frequency of strong storms in today’s climate. And that, despite the projected increase in intense hurricanes, the frequency of those storms projected by the model to occur by the end of the 21st century is considerably less than the frequency of intense hurricanes actually observed in the current climate. If the model doesn’t work for the present, why should we trust it for the future?....The bottom line is that if a model doesn’t perform very well in a particular area of interest—in this case in simulating the observed frequency of intense hurricanes—then that model shouldn’t be considered a reliable estimator of how the characteristics of that area of interest will change in the future."

Using Latest Technology, Experts Calculate That Sea Level Increase Rate At 6 Inches/Century

Read here. As any IPCC "scientist" (and celebrity) can tell you, the world has been dangerously warming, making the glaciers and Greenland ice sheet melt, which is causing the oceans to rise really, really fast!

Wrong, again! The newest research, based on the best technology available, has the ocean rise at 1.5mm per year, which translates to 6 inches per century. The IPCC climate models and experts predicted much faster increases but as we now know, the models have been perfect models of failure.

"The two U.S. researchers say their "new analysis of the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 used corrected Jason-1 and Envisat altimetry observations of total sea level, improved upper ocean steric sea level [data] from the Argo array, and ocean mass variations inferred from GRACE gravity mission observations." This effort yielded success, as they closed the global sea level rise budget by finding that the sum of steric sea level and ocean mass components had a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/year over the period of their analysis"

More Bad News For Warming Alarmists: Two New Studies Indicate That Droughts Less Likely

Read here. The news for global warming alarmists keeps getting worse (but better for the rest of humanity). Peer-research indicates surface evaporation that causes soil dryness is declining, despite warmer temperatures. Also, the level of precipitation has increased. The combination of these two make it very difficult to achieve drought conditions. It's also an indication of new climate model failure as prediction tools.

"Of the many pillars that support the alarmist view of global warming is that droughts will increase in many parts of the world. This prediction is fairly straightforward, for if temperatures increase, potential evapotranspiration (ETo) should increase as well. If precipitation stays the same in the future and ETo increases with higher temperatures, the area would see a reduction in soil moisture and a trend toward drought....We get the message from these two articles – we are getting more rain and we are seeing a decline in potential evapotranspiration....learning that potential evapotranspiration is trending downward and rainfall is increasing sounds to us at World Climate Report like a good thing for forests, grasslands, and agricultural crops throughout the world."

New Study: IPCC CO2-Based Climate Models Have Performed Miserably, Brookhaven Researchers Find

Read here. If human CO2 was causing present global warming, as dictated by the IPCC climate models, current global temperatures would be 1.3°C higher than actually observed. Where does that leave the various climate models that are predicting anywhere from 2.4°C to 7.0°C+ by year 2100?

The Brookhaven scientists don't have a scientific clue as to the future, but they are more than willing to speculate about why temperatures have not matched model predictions:

“Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles,” said Schwartz, “it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth’s climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs.”

No mention of other climate forcings that climate models basically ignore or minimize, which may better explain global cooling/warming directions than the faddish CO2 myopia affecting the majority of climate scientists.

It's Not Only "Experts" of Climategate Who Are Being Investigated; Swine-Flugate Experts Will Get A 'Procto' Also

Read here and here. Regardless of the science discipline, it appears that the science community is on a suicidal, self-destruct path of totally destroying their credibility with the public. It seems that on a daily basis, some scientist(s) is claiming his/her research predicts, based on computer model predictions, imminent disaster if society doesn't act quickly by spending money on more "scientific" research or taking action on the directions of the scientist(s), by spending even more money. In the case of global warming science, the public is tiring of the constant, inaccurate fear-mongering ("predictions"). Now comes the realization that the swine-flu death predictions were way over-the-top also....it's no wonder the public distrust of scientists is growing.

It's not only the scientists that are the problem. One always needs an leftist/liberal enabler, an authoritarian facilitator to spread the unproven fear, 24/7. Which means, of course, all potential disasters have to have their respective United Nations agency sponsor (er...how else to get gullible journalists' attention, thus greasing the skids of power corruption?). In the case of the swine flu, it's the World Health Organization (WHO) a UN affiliated agency. From a WHO representative we have this, which sounds awful familiar to the crisis talk we get from the UN's IPCC: 

"What may be surprising is that it wants to use that power to help bring about a global economic and social revolution--and that Director-General Chan was so blunt about it in a speech in Copenhagen..."

"She said "ministers of health" should take advantage of the "devastating impact" swine flu will have on poorer nations to tell "heads of state and ministers of finance, tourism and trade" that:

    * The belief that "living conditions and health status of the poor would somehow automatically improve as countries modernized, liberalized their trade and improved their economies" is false. Wealth doesn’t equal health.

    * "Changes in the functioning of the global economy" are needed to "distribute wealth on the basis of" values "like community, solidarity, equity and social justice."

    * "The international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs have not operated with fairness as an explicit policy objective."

As of December 31, 2009: 11-Year U.S. Cooling Trend Is Now -10.30°F Per Century

Source here. Overall decade-long global cooling trend has not abated. Both the U.S. and the world are definitely not experiencing global warming, in any sense of the concept. The case for AGW is without merit as temperatures have done exactly the opposite of what IPCC experts and climate models predicted a decade ago. (click on image to enlarge)

 
In the case of U.S. cooling, it has generally been happening since 1998 when a peak in temperatures was reached. If the trend for the U.S. were to continue (trends are not predictions), temperatures would drop some 10.0 degrees over a 100 year span - that's global cooling on steroids, which (we hope) is not likely to happen. (Incorrect temperature trend of -11.03C was corrected to -10.3C, 1-23-10.)

Additional current temp charts here.

Historical temp charts here.

Updated: Chart was mis-labeled. Actually 11-years ending 2009, not 12-years.

As Actual Evidence Mounts, IPCC & Models Appear To Have Been Totally Wrong: New Little Ice Age?

Read here. The IPCC expertise is solely focused on human CO2 as the primary climate driver. The IPCC climate models, as a result, have been designed with the same myopic focus. Yet all the recent weather conditions and longer term temperature trends indicate (and verify) the climate is not being driven by human CO2.

Satellite Confirms That Global Temps Continue Decline Trend: A Minus 1.51°F Per Century Rate

Read here. Despite climate model predictions, despite the IPCC climate experts, despite the Climategate data fraud, and of course, despite Al Gore and Obama, the global temperatures continued their long-term trend downwards. This decline is in the face of steadily rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Per the AGW hypothesis, temperatures should have risen in step with the CO2 increases. The exact opposite occurred as there was a negative (- 0.14) correlation between CO2 and temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)

Additional current temp charts here.

Historical temp charts here.

Methane Level Growth "Accelerating"? Fortunately, Climate Alarmists Wrong Again In 2009

Read here. The climate alarmist scientists have made every effort during 2009 to hype global warming and climate change scares. As the CO2 emissions scare weakened in the face of mounting evidence that human CO2 does not have a major impact on temperatures, the alarmists turned their focus on methane. As the chart below reveals though, methane levels did not "accelerate" as predicted in 2009, nor have they been on an accelerating trend for the last 8 years. In fact, methane levels will hold steady for extended periods, then will shift up for a short time (as in 2007), then return to a steady state; this growth pattern seems to have no relationship to human activities. (click image to enlarge)

Multiple Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Studies Confirm Sea Ice Growth Over Decades; Scientists Befuddled Why Climate Models Are Wrong

Read here. As the mainstream press has popularized, Earth's polar regions are supposed to warm and the sea ice area is supposed to shrink. Why? Because climate models predicted it, and reporters and pundits just accept 100% all climate model predictions, without a sliver of reservation. As with most other climate predictions though, over the last several decades the CO2-based climate models have been spectacularly wrong regarding the South Pole. Actual peer-reviewed research based on empirical evidence confirms this.

New Peer-Reviewed Studies Totally Debunk Alarmist "Predictions" That Global Warming Causes Increases In Severe Weather Activity

Read here. Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms. One should note, that despite the Copenhagen COP-15 scary predictions from the leftist/liberal advocates, despite the mainstream media pandering to the alarmists, despite the typical non-scientific illiterate despot/tyrant/western leader calling for massive climate reparations, and despite the scientific fraud coming from Climategate endeavors, good, objective science is still being produced that sheds light on the very un-settled science of the climate.

"“The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!"

Has Past Global Warming Caused Increase of Infectious Diseases? Latest Peer-Research Says No

Read here. Global warming scientists and alarmists have made non-scientific claims and predictions that global warming will increase the spread of disease. Peer-reviewed research reveals the predictions to be without merit.

"In fact, he concludes that "shifts in climate suitability might actually reduce the geographic distribution of some infectious diseases." And of perhaps even greater import (because it is a real-world observation), he reports that "although the globe is significantly warmer than it was a century ago, there is little evidence that climate change has already favored infectious diseases."

The Very Unsettled Science: Why Oceans Cooled In Recent Years Still Has Scientists Baffled; Cooling Contradicts Climate Models

Read here. Article reviews a long list of ocean/sea temperature studies that confirm the recent ocean cooling. But scientists are unable to explain why oceans lost such a massive amount of heat, especially since climate models predicted the exact opposite. What these findings suggest are earth's warming/cooling climate cycles are dominated by natural causes yet to be identified, let alone being understood.

Likelihood of Arctic Sea Soon Disappearing, Mr. Gore? Not Bloody Likely, As His Lord Monckton Might Say

Read here, here and here. Arctic sea ice is affected by a number of powerful forces other than air temperatures. Although polar sea ice could have disappeared for short spans during the very warm summers in the past, the present Arctic sea ice condition remains quite large, even at its minimum during the summer months. For a historical perspective of the melting Arctic sea ice saga, this is an excellent piece. And despite the climate "expert predictions" that the South Pole sea ice would also soon disappear, since 1979 nothing could be further from the truth as 2009 was a record sea ice extent year. (click on image to enlarge)

Uh-Oh...Researchers Discover Fish of All Ages Like CO2-Induced Acidification...Another Alarmist Prediction 'Flounders'

Read here. Peer-reviewed research out of Australia surprises scientists involved:

"the most common prediction is that ocean acidification could [negatively] affect individual performance (e.g. development, growth, survival, swimming ability)," especially during the early life history of such fish. However, they indicate that "contrary to expectations," their findings indicated that "CO2-induced acidification up to the maximum values likely to be experienced over the next 100 years had no noticeable effect on embryonic duration, egg survivorship and size at hatching for A. percula, and tended to have a positive effect on the length and weight of larvae."

Are climate alarmist scientists ever right?

Satellite Data: Theory That CO2 Causes Positive Water Vapor Feedback, Which Then Boosts Temperatures Seems Not To Work

Read here and here. Another failure for the IPCC climate models and the overall CO2 AGW hypothesis that relies on a phantom positive feedback water vapor mechanism - the climate opera is at the curtain call and the phantom is AWOL. (click on image to enlarge)

"Increasing atmospheric CO2 does not by itself result in significant warming. The climate models assume a significant positive feedback of increased water vapor in order to amplify the CO2 effect and achieve the future warming reported by the IPCC....According to the IPCC, “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“"

Africa's Lake Victoria Basin's Climate Improved Over 20th Century Peer-Research Finds; Climate Scientists' Predictions Were Wrong

Read here. Scientists who advocate human-CO2 caused global warming predicted that African regions, such as the Lake Victoria area, would suffer from reduced precipitation because of the warming. In fact, quite the opposite happened as the Lake Victoria basin had an increase in rainfall overall. As is often the case, climate scientist catastrophic predictions are not based on reality.

Copenhagen, Another Extraordinary Popular "Scientific" Delusion? There's Been 26 Before And All Were Wrong

Read here. The global warming Copenhagen crisis-extravaganza is most certainly driven by the 'madness of crowds' and extreme "scientific" delusion. How this is occurring in the 21st century is simply astounding.

New Research Refutes Climate Model CO2 Predictions: Oceans & Terrestrial Ecosystems Are Soaking Up CO2 Handily, Not The Atmosphere

Read here. Climate models predicted that the oceans and terrestrial carbon sinks would no longer be able to absorb the growing human CO2 emissions, thus causing excess CO2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere. This model prediction is one of the means of their further predicting that global temperatures would increase. Actual scientific research, not computer climate model predictions, discovers that both oceans and earth's ecosystems are easily absorbing the human CO2 emissions.

Satellite Update: Global Cooling Trend Continues At -1.3°F Per Century Rate; Climate Models & IPCC "Experts" Failed To Predict

Read here. The UAH satellite temperatures for November 2009 have been announced and it jumped to the 0.50°C temperature anomaly point after a decline in October 2009. The full nine year trend continues negative as extended cooling has made its impact felt despite the accelerated global warming predictions of climate models. (click image to enlarge)

 
 

Pink-Feeted Geese To Benefit From More Global Warming Peer-Reveiwed Study Finds! (BTW, So Do All The Other Bird Species)

Read here. Climate alarmists are fond of claiming that avian species have suffered greatly due to the "unprecedented" warming and predict they will continue to do so. As is the scientific case almost every single time, the alarmists have been proven wrong as multiple studies find that bird species have prospered worldwide during the 20th century, especially the late 20th century when warming, natural or otherwise, occurred in many regions.

Peer-Reviewed Research Finds That Coral Reef Records Disprove Climate Model Predictions

Read here. Both climate alarmist scientists and their computer climate models predicted that the climate would suffer from more variability due to human CO2 induced global warming. When coral reef records were analyzed, it was found that recent climate variability had lessened as compared to the period from 1850-1920. Additionally, climate variability appears to be associated with the Pacific Ocean's ENSO cycle, not CO2. Further empirical evidence that the IPCC climate models are incapable of any degree of correctness.

Analysis of Multiple Peer-Reviewed Studies: Global Ocean Warming Not Happening As Climate Models Predicted

Read here. The AGW hypothesis claims that the world's oceans have significantly warmed due to human CO2 emissions, and will continue to warm at an accelerated pace. The IPCC climate models were programmed to assume this ocean warming assumption. Reviewing the major research studies on this issue over the last decade, it's been found that the oceans have not significantly warmed, and more importantly, have actually cooled (lost heat) in recent years.  This behavior runs counter to every IPCC climate model. In addition, one of the studies points to the oceans acting as a giant climate thermostat incorporating negative feedback mechanisms. The negative feedbacks prevent the global warming from achieving any type of "tipping point."

The Climate Model Joke Continues: NCAR Climate Model Prediction Fails In Peer-Researched Study On Max/Min Daily Temperatures

Read here. Of course, since none of the "inquisitive" journalists who get their science from press releases, supplied by federally funded (on-the-dole) climate scientists, would dare to report the actual science, we are fortunate to have real climate scientists do their reporting job for them. In the case of the new NCAR study, it is revealed that their highly claimed, and most expensive, climate model spit out results opposite of what was observed. In the words of climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels:

"So while the observations suggest that our nights are warming faster than our days, this is not so in the NCAR climate model which suggests that the days and nights are warming up at the same rate. Such a model error leads to the model grossly overestimating the frequency and intensity of future heat waves....Repeat after us—if the models can’t replicate reality (for the right reasons) they can’t reliably predict the future."

For past climate model wrong-way predictions and fiascoes, read on here, because you can't read or hear about the climate model failures from the mainstream media press.

Climate Alarmist Scientists Predicted More Hurricanes Due To "New" El Niño; For 2009, As Usual, Prediction Totally Wrong

Read here, here, and here. This time it wasn't the MIT climate modelers making the idiotic predictions, but instead the Georgia Tech climate scientists decided they too needed to produce predictions that would fail big-time. These alarmist scientists were so wrong, it's truly frightening - trillion dollar policy decisions being made based on worthless, speculative, hyped climate predictions such as this.

Global Precipitation Research Project Reveals Fatal Water Vapor Flaw In Climate Models

Read here, source data here. IPCC climate models and climate alarmist scientists have claimed global precipitation increases due to global warming. Both satellite data and local rain gauges have proven this prediction to be wrong. More importantly though:

"The study also raises questions on the extent to which water vapor content has increased globally, if the global averaged precipitation has not changed significantly. A positive atmospheric water vapor feedback, in response to an increase in the radiative warming of the well-mixed greenhouse gases, is at the foundation of the IPCC perspective on global warming."

Alarmist Scientists Claim Hay Fever & Asthma Will Increase Due To Global Warming: EU Peer-Reviewed Research Says, 'Wrong'

Read here. As the public has become weary of all wild predictions of catastrophe due to global warming and climate change, another speculative claim falls victim to actual data and peer-reviewed research.

Major Temperature Study: Africa's Daily High Temps Stay Flat For 50+ Years; Africa Is Not Warming From Increased CO2 Levels

Read here. Research by scientists find that Africa's maximum high temperatures during daylight hours have not budged for almost 60 years (if CO2 causes global warming then Africa's daylight temperatures should have gone up). The scientists did find that night time temperatures have increased over the same time period, though. This is not unusual since Africa's land-use and surface development have expanded over the last half-century. With development comes the normal daytime heat retention that is then released during night time hours, this increasing surrounding daily minimum temperatures.

Based on land-surface temperatures, Africa does not appear to be affected by the "unprecedented" global warming due to the "unprecedented" global CO2 levels, which represents a catastrophic prediction failure by the IPPC and its climate models.

How Will Fish Survive Ocean Acidification? Swimmingly, As Peer-Reviewed Research Discovers

Read here. Climate alarmist scientists predict sea life will cease to exist because of the increased CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. Unfortunately, it appears no one has told the fish. Another climate prediction about CO2 caused global warming/climate change that fails testing and research.

Global Warming Hysteria Fails Another Test: Recent Peer-Reviewed Studies Determine Severe Droughts Decline Over Last 40 years

Read here. The latest peer-reviewed science, based on actual evidence and observations, discovers that speculative climate models' predictions about severe droughts increasing due to global warming have no basis in the real world climate. Feared climate change hyped by alarmists is not happening. (click image to enlarge)

Another Example of Why Public Radio & TV Can't Be Trusted On Global Warming Reporting

Read here. A blog maintained by the Minnesota Public Radio uses a graph to visually suggest that global temperatures are relentlessly rising, along with CO2 emissions, as the climate models have "accurately" predicted. It's a powerful image that unfortunately is totally disconnected from today's reality. This image, on the left below, shows a temperature record that ends way back in 1990's and provides no clue as to actual relationship between CO2 and global temperatures for past decade. It's obvious that the public radio meteorologist who authored this blog post has an agenda that does not include sharing the actual scientific truth, as the below graph (source here) on the right reveals. (click images to enlarge)

 

Multiple Peer-Reviewed Studies Confirm That Severe Flooding Has Not Increased Despite Warming Alarmist Claims

Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and zealots have predicted that "unprecedented" warming in 20th century has caused increased severe flooding. Multiple studies were conducted for the European region and the scientific consensus is that severe flooding has not increased.

Global Warming & Swine Flu Similarities: "Major" Crises Fabricated By UN Politicians and Bureaucrats?

Read here, here, and here. This site is about global warming and the questionable evidence used by the UN to establish fear and hysteria in the mainstream media and with national politicians. What's currently happening in the political and scientific worlds regarding swine flu have eerie similarities with the UN-caused climate change science fiasco. Is the UN and its agencies at the root cause of corrupted science and politics? Should the UN be shutdown for the integrity of science to be restored?

What's Revkin, Begley, Eilperin & Big MSM Outlets Have To Say About The 2009 Record Low Antarctic Ice Melt? Amazingly, Zilch

Read here. The MSM, and its major science reporters, has a long history of not even achieving a low level of objectivity and honesty in their global warming and climate change coverage. As an example of this low standard of reporting, a 2009 major climate condition has gone totally unreported (as of October 27, 2009) by the mainstream media - Antarctica is not melting - as global warming alarmists claim. Thank goodness though, the Revkin's of the world are reporting Arctic polar science in a much more complete and serious manner. For most citizens, this type of "reporting" by the press has become a joke, which has not reflected well on the major news outlets. (click image to enlarge)

Climate Models Fail Major Consistency Test versus Arctic Climate: Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Arctic Predictions Unreliable

Read here. Research funds amounting to $billions have been poured into CO2-based climate models. Yet, as this 2009 Arctic study confirms, these models are no more likely to predict actual climate conditions for decade time spans than your local weatherman is going to be able to accurately predict the weather 30 days from now. These continuing model failures to predict with any level of accuracy makes all policy decisions on global warming/climate change, based on the IPCC models, a very, very risky proposition.

What Do Swine Flu & Global Warming Have In Common? "Expert" Government Predictions That Are Totally Worthless

Read here and here. Expert predictions by government scientists and/or bureaucrats have no real validity. Simply stated, the "experts" don't have a clue. Over the recent past,.....

Has "Unprecedented" Global Warming Caused Indian Ocean To Rise? Yes, And It Continues To Rise At 5 Inches/Century Rate!

Read here. As usual, the "unprecedented" global warming proclaimed by IPCC climate scientists has not caused any large sea level rises as predicted. Research finds this is also true for the Northern Indian Ocean that directly affects Pakistan, India, Yemen, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand.

Are Climate Models Worthless? IPCC Climate Models' Predictions of Methane (CH4) Levels Totally Wrong

Read here. The IPCC climate models predictions of levels of methane gas in the atmosphere do not resemble reality in any sense. Even more evidence that climate models should be ignored.