The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
The IPCC and other global warming alarmists predicted that the frequency of extreme hurricanes would increase because of CO2-induced global warming. At least that's what their theory told them.
Recently, climate researchers analyzed a large Florida sinkhole that had hurricane evidence going back some 4,500 years. This new empirical evidence now establishes that super hurricane frequency was much greater thousands of years ago, and that the modern era has experienced far fewer of these monster storms despite human CO2 and warming.
"Lane et al. developed a 4500-year record of intense hurricane-induced storm surges based on data obtained from "a nearly circular, 200-m-diameter cover-collapse sinkhole...reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these "high-magnitude" events "peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago." Thereafter, it suggests that they were "relatively rare" with "about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago," after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which "began around 600 years ago" and has persisted through the present with "below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia."" [Philip Lane, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Jonathan D. Woodruff, Andrea D. Hawkes 2011: Marine Geology]
More evidence that computer climate models are unable to produce accurate simulations of climate reality - the models can't do the Arctic
Read here. The Arctic polar region is dominated by ice and water. One would expect any taxpayer funded computer model worth its salt would be able to accurately predict the climate of this simple ice and water region, no?
Well...as is the case with any computer climate model simulation, peer reviewed research finds the global climate models are also worthless for accurately predicting the Arctic climate, let alone the entire global climate.
"Specifically, he writes that (1) "Zhang and Walsh (2006) noted that even though the CMIP3 models capture the negative trend in sea ice area, the inter-model scatter is large," that (2) "Stroeve et al. (2007) show that few models exhibit negative trends that are comparable to observations," and that (3) "Eisenman et al. (2007) conclude that the results of current CMIP3 models cannot be relied upon for credible projections of sea ice behavior."...analysis demonstrates that "the skill of the CMIP3 models (as a group) in simulation of observed Arctic sea ice motion, Fram Strait export, extent, and thickness between 1979 and 2008 seems rather poor."..."...and that "the spatial pattern of Arctic sea ice thickness, a large-scale slowly varying climatic feature of the ice cover, is not reproduced in a majority of the models." Consequently, he writes that "the models will not get the main features of natural sea ice variability that may be dominating recent sea ice extent declines..." [R. Kwok 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans]
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts
As the adjacent chart shows, atmospheric CO2 levels have been methodically rising. Per the IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts, the rising CO2 should cause a water vapor "tipping point" that would cause "runaway" warming. It hasn't, on both counts.
The bold blue curve reveals atmospheric relative humidity actually decreasing (less water vapor) over the last 17 years since the end of 1994. The bold red curve represents the slowing growth of atmospheric warming, as measured by NASA's own satellite.
In essence, the fabled positive feedback the climate models use does not exist, and climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is robustly lower than assumed.
If the 17-year satellite linear trend were to continue unchanged, the global temperature increase by year 2100 would be only +1.13 degrees, well below the IPCC's minimum prediction. The last 10-year linear trend (not shown in chart) indicates an increase of a measly +0.3 degrees for global temps by 2100, which would be barely perceptible.
Simply stated, the IPCC can't predict squat, especially anything to do with climate changes due to human CO2. Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
In addition, a new peer reviewed study found that over the last 30 years the Antarctica snowmelt has been trending down, which substantiates the observed cooler temperatures as the above plots show.
"Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades.....The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states, "other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability." Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf." [P. Kuipers Munneke, G. Picard, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, E. van Meijgaard 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
As this updated climate map reveals, the severe drought condition for Australia during 2011 was essentially non-existent. The IPCC-based climate science predicted more frequent and intense droughts, which has not been the case.
Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
Satellite measurements confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
The United Nation's IPCC agency has long predicted that the infectious disease malaria will spread due to global warming - new study says that's false
Read here. Like so many of the catastrophic claims and predictions that the IPCC has ginned up to scare policymakers and the public, the fear of malaria's spread from global warming was very effective. The only problem with the malaria claim was that the empirical evidence did not support it. It's another failed prediction by the very troubled UN climate agency.
New research by Paaijmans et al finally buries this specific piece of IPCC B.S. fear-mongering that left / liberal media "science" pundits (Romm and Revkin) always push on their gullible, anti-science audience.
"A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study...finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness...Simon Hay, an expert in malarial epidemiology at the University of Oxford, UK, who in 2010 reported a scant correlation between malaria and global warming, says that the study could have wide significance...Rising temperatures “may well contribute to the host of other changes that have occurred during the last 100 years that have caused malaria to contract in extent and intensity globally,” he says." [Krijn P. Paaijmans, Simon Blanford, Brian H. K. Chan, Matthew B. Thomas 2011: Biology Letters]
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
Scientists determine IPCC hysteria about global warming causing Arctic methane gas "tipping point" release to be unfounded - it's not happening
Read here. The UN's IPCC, 'Big Green' and Climategate scientists are all about alarming the public and policymakers, actual science be damned. In this case, the usual scare-culprits came up with a theory that CO2 warming of global will cause a super release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane that would lead to a "tipping point" and "runaway" global warming.
And as it almost always turns out with the IPCC and Big Green, their hysterical climate change predictions are found to be meritless. The research team of Dmitrenko et al. pretty much defused this blown out of proportion prediction, adding to the incredibly long list of failed IPCC fear mongering prognostications.
"So despite a warming Arctic, the feared large methane release has not been manifest. Which fits very nicely into the new results from Dmitrenko and colleagues. They find that the methane observed to be bubbling up from the Arctic seafloor off the coast of Siberia to be the ongoing and long-term response to the flooding of the seabed there that occurred some 8,000 years ago and not a response to recent warming in the region...Dmitrenko et al. write: The CH4 [methane] supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes...The new Dmitrenko result pretty much throws cold water on the “shocking” news that has been making its way through the global media in recent days that reports from a recent survey of the Siberian Arctic Shelf indicate that vast quantities of methane are bubbling to the surface of the ocean and that this is “stok[ing] new global warming fears.” [Igor A. Dmitrenko, Sergey A. Kirillov, L. Bruno Tremblay, Heidemarie Kassens, Oleg A. Anisimov, Sergey A. Lavrov, Sergey O. Razumov, Mikhail N. Grigoriev 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Predicted warming of continental U.S. by climate "experts" is proven to be robustly wrong
As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
The climate models used by IPCC are incapable of predicting sea surface temperatures (global warming) with any reliability
Read here. Utilizing climate agency provided data and the commonly installed computer spreadsheet program called Excel, Bob Tisdale does a thorough analysis of ocean temperatures and climate model predictions. In a nutshell, Bob's comparative analysis clearly shows how worthless the climate models truly are.
(As an aside, from the Climategate2.0 emails we learn that the top IPCC scientists are so busy plotting and conspiring against other scientists they don't have the time to learn this powerful analytical tool called Excel. This may explain why the IPCC is so clueless about the robust failures of climate models, no?)
The above charts (click to enlarge) produced by Tisdale show both the Northern and Southern hemisphere actual sea surface temperatures (blue). The charts include the IPCC's climate model projection (red) for the last 17 years. As can be seen, the reality of sea surface temperatures and global warming is significantly different than what the IPCC's climate models predicted.
Per the climate models, the projected warming by 2100 is 5 times greater than the trend based on reality in the Southern Hemisphere and approximately 3 times greater for the Northern Hemisphere. This level of climate model error truly makes the IPCC projections worthless even for decadal periods, let alone for year 2100.
Yet, despite the obvious model failure, climate scientists whose financial security is dependent on the taxpayer dole continue to claim in public that climate model projections are accurate, if not the holy gospel of climate science. In private though, the Climategate2.0 emails indicate that climate scientists have little regard for the billion dollar climate model failures.
Welcome to the world of UN-IPCC climate science corruption.
Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.
In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.
Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)
The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.
The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.
The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.
However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.
This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.
"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."
Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?
The UN's IPCC climate models found, by scientists, to be abject failures at global warming and/or climate change predictions
Read here. It is now believed by over 97% of all physical science scientists that the IPCC's climate models have failed to accurately predict recent changes in global temperatures and associated climate change. The inconvenient facts of climate model prediction failure have become well known and are no longer denied by the world's science community.
(Note to readers: Try to find a single PhD in physical sciences whom actually believes, and will state in writing, that the climate computer simulations have been accurate over the last 15 years....good luck with that.)
The latest peer-reviewed research by Chinese scientists, Fu et al., substantiates what the vast majority of scientists have concluded: IPCC computer climate models are presently incapable of producing accurate climate predictions and will continue to be unable to do so for the foreseeable future.
"In setting the stage for their study, the authors note that the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that climate projections based on models that consider both human and natural factors provide "credible quantitative estimates of future climate change." However, as they continue, mismatches between IPCC AR4 model ensembles and observations, especially the multi-decadal variability (MDV), "have cast shadows on the confidence of the model-based decadal projections of future climate,"...evaluated "many individual runs of AR4 models in the simulation of past global mean temperature," focusing on the performance of individual runs of models included in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase three (CMIP3) in simulating the multi-decadal variability of the past global mean temperature...they determined that "most of the individual model runs fail to reproduce the MDV of past climate, which may have led to the overestimation of the projection of global warming for the next 40 years or so."" [CongBin Fu, Cheng Qian, ZhaoHua Wu 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
The absurdity of "consensus" climate change science and global warming alarmism on display, again
Read here. As the 2011 hurricane season comes to a close, there has yet to be a direct major hurricane strike on the U.S. since 2005 (note: Hurricane Irene in 2011 became Tropical Storm Irene before striking the continental U.S.).
The anti-science left/liberal/progressives and the IPCC Climategate alarmists have long predicted that CO2-induced global warming will cause more frequent and more severe hurricane strikes on America's Atlantic coast. These AGW hurricanes would then cause massive economic damage and carnage resulting in climate refugees fleeing the coast.
In a nutshell, this is the pathetic and hysterical climate "science" that the left embraces and promulgates, without any supporting empirical evidence (image source), or now, even a credible theory.
A team of NOAA researchers has recently completed a new analysis and have now conceived a new "consensus" science: global warming will cause less storms to strike the U.S.
Wang et al. analyzed the Atlantic Warming Pool (AWP) history and determined that when it was warmer and larger, the AWP birthed hurricanes that were farther from U.S. shores and less likely to strike the Atlantic coasts. Ergo, global warming may indeed cause larger storms but they would dissipate over open waters before reaching U.S.
"For this investigation, Wang and colleagues divided the observed history of Atlantic tropical cyclones (since 1970) into years with large AWPs and those with small AWPs and then tallied up within each division storm characteristics such as number and tracking tendency. What they found was that large AWPs were associated with more storms, but—and this is important—storms which preferentially stayed off-shore and did not make landfall along the U.S. coast. In other words, the hurricanes which formed became less menacing...as the AWP increased in size it made conditions more favorable for tropical cyclone formation and growth further out in the Atlantic Ocean. And at the same time, it altered the atmospheric circulation patterns over the central Atlantic Ocean such that the storms which did form were steered more northward into the open Atlantic and away from the U.S. mainland." [Chunzai Wang, Hailong Liu, Sang-Ki Lee, Robert Atlas 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. It is well documented that the IPCC's climate "experts" (software programmers) inserted a very high (unproven) CO2 climate sensitivity into the computer climate models. For PR propaganda purposes, the IPCC's climate simulations then foretold a future climate of potentially high temperatures due to the mysterious "tipping point."
As this typical climate model prediction chart reveals though, there is an obvious real-time problem with the IPCC programmers' assumption that the climate is highly sensitive to high levels of atmospheric CO2.
New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of "accelerating" global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong. The research confirms previousstudiesthat the projected future tipping point climate conditions were falsehoods. The actual science again proves global warming skeptics to be correct and, more robustly, that anti-science global warming alarmists, such as Chris Mooney, to be...well...er...pathological liars, exaggerators hysteria-loving alarmists who ignore climate reality.
Much to the major chagrin of climate alarmists everywhere, the Schmittner et al. team conclude that an approximate global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees is a much more likely outcome than the over-inflated 5.0 degrees publicized by the IPCC. This new finding makes the upcoming IPCC's the-world-is-melting convention in Durban, South Africa the penultimate farce.
"There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C....In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”...results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions..." [Schmittner, A., et al., 2011: Science]
Read here. As scientific study after study has determined, climate models have about zero skill in predicting future climate scenarios. These computer simulations suffer from many shortcomings that automatically prevent them from predicting accurate global warming (or cooling) and associated climate change characteristics.
Even the most incompetent of the Climategate scientists, Kevin ("it's a travesty") Trenberth admits the following about the stupendously expensive climate models:
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models...Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
Obviously, the "experts" concur with the laypersons' conclusion: models are worthless regarding future climate predictions. But can climate models at least accurately predict the past (hindcasts), though? Nope.
Bob Tisdale did some extreme number crunching and found that the climate models can't even accurately hindcast the past despite knowing what exactly happened with the past climate.
Soooo, what did he find when he compared the real data of the past versus the simulated past data?
The simulated climate model average determined NINO3 sea area temperatures must have increased at a rate of 10.4C degrees per century.
And what was reality?
NINO3 sea temperatures actually increased at a per century rate of 0.7C degrees.
Summary: Policymakers should completely ignore any scientists who rely on climate models as a basis for future global warming or climate change predictions.
Read here. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent IPCC "expert" deeply involved in the Climategate scandal, has long promulgated the IPCC prediction that CO2-induced global warming will cause an increase in tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Trenberth even doubles-down by stating that all modern severe weather events are the result of "unequivocal" global warming. Unfortunately for Trenberth and the IPCC, the overwhelming, unequivocally growing evidence documents well that cyclones/hurricanes have not increased as predicted.
First, as all know to be the case (click on adjacent image to enlarge), Trenberth is truth-challenged in public regarding the supposed "unequivocal" global warming claim (he sings a mightily different tune in private conversations). As the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT empirical evidence shows, accelerated global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years.
This evidence is irrefutable, yet Trenberth continues to claim global warming is "unequivocal" despite other climate alarmists giving up the ghost of AGW and are now producing research trying to explain the disappearance of global warming. (One would guess that this disturbing and consistent lack of stating the fundamental climate truth by Trenberth has to be a pathological disorder of some kind.)
Now in addition to the amazing disregard of actual global temperatures, a new study by Ying et al. determines that the empirical evidence proves that the China region has not experienced an increase of tropical cyclones over the last 50 years, which corroborates the vast majority of studies on this subject, globally. Thus, Ternberth's beliefs and predictions are again eviscerated by the cruel empirical scientific process - and the same holds true for the IPCC as well.
"The authors write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001, 2007) has twice suggested that "precipitation and extreme winds associated with tropical cyclones may have become more intense." However, they note that this dual claim is "mainly based on numerical models,"...Working with tropical cyclone (TC) best track and related observational severe wind and precipitation datasets created by the Shanghai Typhoon Institute of the China Meteorological Administration...report that over the past half-century there have been no changes in the frequency of TC occurrence...they say that "during the past 50 years, there have been no significant trends in the days of TC...that "the seasonal rhythm of the TC influence on China also has not changed."...found that "the maximum sustained winds of TCs affecting the whole of China and all sub-regions have decreasing trends."...state that "the trends of extreme storm precipitation and 1-hour precipitation were all insignificant."" [Ming Ying, YuHua Yang, BaoDe Chen, Wei Zhang 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Read here. The Climategate scientists of the IPCC predicted that modern global warming would cause an increase of severe floods, as did the IPCC climate models. But when the science is objectively analyzed and the empirical evidence crunched, this prediction fails as so many before it.
Researchers Hirsch and Ryberg examine the U.S. evidence from a period of 85 to 127 years and conclude there is no significant relationship between the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (that causes modern AGW) and annual floods.
"...shows that flooding has not increased in the United States over records of 85 to 127 years. This adds to a pile of research that shows similar results around the world. This result is of course consistent with our work that shows that increasing damage related to weather extremes can be entirely explained by societal changes, such as more property in harm's way. In fact, in the US flood damage has decreased dramatically as a fraction of GDP, which is exactly whet you get if GDP goes up and flooding does not." [R. M. Hirsch, K. R. Ryberg 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]
Read here. The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study.
Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change.
"The authors write that "the notorious tropical bias problem in climate simulations of global coupled general circulation models manifests itself particularly strongly in the tropical Atlantic,"... they state that "the climate bias problem is still so severe that one of the most basic features of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean -- the eastward shoaling thermocline -- cannot be reproduced by most of the IPCC assessment report models,...as they describe it, "show that the bias in the eastern equatorial Atlantic has a major effect on sea-surface temperature (SST) response to a rapid change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)."...ultimate implication of Wan et al.'s findings is, in their words, that "in order to accurately simulate past abrupt climate changes and project future changes, the bias in climate models must be reduced." But if "little or no progress" on this problem has been made in the tropical Atlantic "over the past decades,"..." [Xiuquan Wana, Ping Changa, Charles S. Jacksonn, Link Jia, Mingkui Lia 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]
Read here. The climate predictions of the IPCC, its climate models and "experts," such as Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye and Jeff Masters have been robustly abysmal. As the world struggles with unprecedented and severe financial and economic disasters, the shrill, self-centered, non-scientific incompetence of climate science alarmism continues to be shouted by egotistical personalities regardless of the scientific evidence.
These deniers/liars of past extreme climate change are the same ones whom have long predicted that human CO2-induced global warming would cause more severe tropical cyclones and hurricanes. Fortunately for the rest of us, these deniers/liars have been spectacularly wrong, as the latest peer-reviewed study makes clear.
Researchers used a new updated database of cyclone activity for the Australian region and determined that eastern Australia has experienced a 62% decline in severe cyclone strikes since the 1870's. All alarmists and IPCC computer predicted the opposite.
"The authors note that several studies have raised concerns that tropical cyclones, or TCs -- and especially the severe ones -- "have become more frequent in many places in response to global warming," citing Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005). In addition, Callaghan and Power write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, highlights several studies that conclude that "tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense in the future in response to global warming," citing Alley et al. (2007)...developed and used "a new data base of severe land-falling TCs for eastern Australia derived from numerous historical sources, that has taken over a decade to develop."...new data base allows them "to document changes over much longer periods than has been done previously for the Southern Hemisphere,"...they report that "the sign and magnitude of trends calculated over 30 years periods vary substantially," highlighting the fact that "caution needs to be taken in making inferences based on e.g. satellite era data only." And second, they report that "the linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TC/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TC/year in recent times -- a 62% decline."" [Jeff Callaghan, Scott B. Power 2011: Climate Dynamics]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists, and other taxpayer funded alarmist scientists, have long predicted that global warming would cause catastrophic crop failure leading to mass starvation.
Unfortunately for the left/liberal alarmists, this 2011 growing season's bumper crops are again proving how wrong the United Nation's IPCC and climate alarmist predictions are - their constant prediction failure is simply a systemic characteristic of the embarrassingly feeble AGW-CO2 hypothesis.
"These people think you're stupid: We're supposed to ignore all those "bumper crop" reports and believe that trace amounts of CO2 are devastating world food production"
As the year 2011 is turning out to be a good year in terms of agriculture, the below charts clearly demonstrate the agricultural abundance that "global warming" has delivered to U.S. farmers since 1959. And, as this empirical evidence (corn, rice, soybeans and wheat yields) reveals, the feared global warming has actually proven to be a boon to feeding the world's hungry.
(click crop yield charts to enlarge - data source:)
Obviously, warming is good for food; and, more significantly, alarmist climate scientists and the United Nations have been robustly wrong, with significant consistency.
The EU satellite has been accurately measuring global sea levels since late 2003. Based on those measurements, EU scientists determined that the mean sea level increase trend was a meager 0.816 millimeters per year, which translates into a 2.8 inch increase by year 2100.
This chart plots the actual satellite measurements through August 2011, as well as concurrent monthly CO2 levels.
Despite the predictions by the professional climate alarmists at the IPCC, the hypothesized "accelerating" global warming has not caused the hypothesized "unequivocal" increase in mean sea levels, as the chart clearly indicates. In fact, mean sea levels have actually decreased, counter to all IPCC expert and climate model predictions - literally, a stupendous scientific fail.
Although linear trends don't necessarily make for very good long-term predictions, this empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels than what the taxpayer funded alarmist "experts" have predicted. Based on this real world data, it's highly unlikely that major coastal regions will be impacted by the wildly speculative higher sea levels.
Read here. Fanatical global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore, have aggressively publicized extreme green/left/liberal catastrophic scenarios over the past decade. These predicted catastrophic scenarios are then widely disseminated, and popularized, by the mainstream media and Hollywood in an attempt to bias both policymakers and the public.
Unfortunately for the likes of Al Gore and the MSM, the predicted catastrophic scenarios, such as an increased frequency of severe hurricanes and cyclones, keep proving to be nothing more than wild, exaggerated speculation.
A comprehensive review of the world's best, recently published peer reviewed research, by scientist Jonathon Nott, determined the Al Gore/IPCC's Climategate science speculation that global warming would cause an increase of catastrophic hurricanes and cyclones is not supported by any empirical evidence. Ergo, the green alarmist prediction of increased CO2 emissions causing more hurricanes from global warming is baseless.
"...the Australian researcher reports that "recent analyses of corrected historical TC records suggest that there are no definitive trends towards an increase in the frequency of high-intensity TCs for the Atlantic Ocean region (Knutson et al., 2010), the northwest Pacific (Chan, 2006; Kossin et al., 2007) and the Australian region, South Pacific and south Indian oceans (Kuleshov et al., 2010)." He notes, however, that "over multi-century to millennial timescales, substantial change has occurred in virtually all TC-generating regions of the globe," with "alternating periods of lesser and greater activity," writing that "the longer, coarser-resolution records display periods from multi-century to over a millennium in length, whereas the higher-resolution records register multi-decadal to centennial-length periodicities." In some of these cases, Nott says that (1) "different climate states, such as periods dominated by El Niños and La Niñas, appear to be responsible for the TC variability." In other cases, he says the responsible factor seems to be (2) shifts in the position of the jet stream, (3) solar variability, or (4) some unknown cause." [Jonathon Nott 2011: Journal ofQuaternary Science]
Read here. In the ever growing portfolio of studies finding climate model failure, new research determines that actual upper troposphere temperatures are significantly below the predicted temps of the IPCC climate models. This finding represents the complete collapse of climate model validity.
All of the UN-IPCC's catastrophic scenarios depend on there being a high climate sensitivity, which will manifest itself as significant upper atmosphere warming in the tropical latitudes, thus leading to "accelerating" surface temperatures.
Unfortunately for the climate model alarmists, their entire simulated climate world, in actuality, is a climate sensitivity farce. Satellite empirical evidence from Fu et al "show little trend" over the 1979-2010 period. As a result, tropical surface temperatures are robustly below climate model predictions.
"As they describe it, Fu et al. examined trends in the temperature difference (ΔT) between the tropical upper- and lower-middle-troposphere based on satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU) data, as interpreted by both the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and the Remote Sensing System (RSS) teams, comparing both sets of results with AR4 GCM ΔT simulations for the period 1979-2010...report that the RSS and UAH ΔT time series "agree well with each other," and they indicate that they show little trend over the period of record. On the other hand, they state that there is "a steady positive trend" in the model-simulated ΔT results, concluding that the significantly smaller ΔT trends from both the RSS and UAH teams "indicate possible common errors among AR4 GCMs." In addition, they note that the tropical surface temperature trend of the multi-model ensemble mean is more than 60% larger than that derived from observations, "indicating that AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010... "it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between [the] tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades,"" [Qiang Fu, Syukuro Manabe, Celeste M. Johanson 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. The IPCC's climate scientists and green global warming alarmists have long predicted that global warming will cause an increase/spread of malaria to higher latitude regions. As with most catastrophic AGW predictions, the IPCC and alarmists are wrong, again.
In a peer reviewed study, researchers analyzed all pertinent Finnish data from 1750 to 2008, which robustly confirms that malaria's incidence declined in the Nordic region while global temperatures increased. The decline occurred well before advanced malaria eradication techniques were implemented.
"The authors analyzed malaria statistics that were collected in Finland from 1750 to 2008 via correlation analyses between malaria frequency per million people and all variables that have been used in similar studies throughout other parts of Europe," including temperature data, animal husbandry, consolidation of land by redistribution and household size...report that "malaria was a common endemic disease in Finland in the 18th and 19th centuries and prevalent in the whole country," and they say that "mortality during malaria epidemics usually varied between 0.85 and 3%." Thereafter, however, they found that "malaria declined slowly in Finland without any deliberate counter-measures," such that "the last epidemic in Helsinki occurred in 1902" and "during the 1930s malaria was close to extinction."" [Lena Hulden, Larry Hulden 2009: Malaria Journal]
Read here. After last week's spectacularly lame, 24-hour Gore "climate reality" circus, now comes new research that just mocks the hysterical Gore-science spewed out last week.
The IPCC climate models, and Nobel 'Gore-science,' contend that severe weather has increased because of CO2-induced global warming. Li et al. chose to investigate this prediction and researched severe weather events for the Perth, Australia region. They discovered no trend in severe weather frequency, which contradicts the IPCC/Gore prediction.
"Citing "unprecedented public concern" with respect to the impacts of climate change, Li et al. (2011) set out to examine the variability and trends of storminess for the region of the Perth metropolitan coast of Australia. To do so, they conducted an extensive set of analyses using observations of wave, wind, air pressure, and water level over the period 1994-2008. The results of their analysis, in their view, should serve "to validate or invalidate the climate change hypothesis" that rising CO2 concentrations are increasing the frequency and severity of storms...all storm indices showed significant interannual variability over the period of record, but "no evidence of increasing (decreasing) trends in extreme storm power was identified to validate the wave climate change hypotheses for the Perth region." [Fangjun Li, Lucya Roncevich, Charlie Bicknell, Reena Lowry, and Karl Ilich 2011: Journal of Coastal Research]
The IPCC, and publicity oriented propaganda-scientists, such as Al Gore and Kevin Trenberth, should be muzzled by the scientific community as they both continue to do significant and robust damage to the reputation and credibility of science in general.
Read here. The IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts have long predicted that Greenland would lose ice mass due to CO2-induced global warming. Although satellites confirm that Greenland's glaciers in total have dumped massive amounts of ice into surrounding seas during recent years, these same satellites also confirm that generic global warming is probably not the cause.
In actuality, if Greenland was a casualty of unprecedented global warming, then its glaciers would be losing huge ice mass in unison, as predicted by the IPCC. Instead, as the new Chen et al. study finds, there is huge variability of ice loss among Greenland's glaciers, which can't be explained by AGW.
For example, using the advanced technology of the GRACE satellites, scientists determined over the most recent years that:
Greenland's northwestern glaciers' ice loss increased by: 100Gt/yr
Greenland's southeastern glaciers' ice loss decreased by: 109Gt/yr
This study's scientists suggest that the gigantic variability (that wasn't predicted) is likely to be a function of regional climate/weather conditions resulting from normal interannual variability.
"A paper published...in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds "the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions." Global warming allegedly due to greenhouse gases would not be expected to cause such regional interannual variability in Greenland ice loss, thus pointing to shifts in weather instead." [J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, B. D. Tapley 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate "scientists" and the likes of Al Gore have long predicted that cyclone activity (hurricanes, tropical storms, etc.) would increase in frequency from global warming. This highly acclaimed prediction has been a spectacular failure and embarrassment to alarmists though, as the latest research reveals.
Dr. Ryan Maue's peer reviewed study confirms what objective scientists have been stating: recent cyclonic activity is at its lowest level, not its highest, in spite of CO2-induced warming.
"The U.S. researcher reports that "in the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s," and he also finds that "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low." Some details of note include the fact that "a total of 69 TCs were counted during calendar year 2010, the fewest observed in the past 40 years with reliable frequency data," as well as the fact that over that same four-decade period, "12-month running-sums of the number of global TCs of at least tropical storm force has averaged 87," while "the minimum number of 64 TCs was recently tallied through May 2011."...""there is no significant linear trend in the frequency of global TCs," in agreement with the analysis of Wang et al. (2010), plus the fact that the earth is experiencing "this current period of record inactivity,"" [Ryan N. Maue 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. All of the major climate models predicted that the billions of tons of CO2 emitted by humans over the last 60 years would cause the oceans to warm in an "accelerating" manner. It's not happening, though.
A critical measurement of ocean climate is its heat content. The newest data from NOAA reveals ocean heat content has flat-lined over recent years, contrary to "expert" climate model predictions. (click on images from Bob Tisdale to enlarge)
"And as many are aware, Climate Model Projections of Ocean Heat Content anomalies did not anticipate this flattening. Figure 2 compares the ARGO-era (2003 to present) NODC Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies to the GISS Model-E Projection of 0.7*10^22 Joules per year. The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E."
Read here. The climate models, based on the IPCC's favored CO2-based AGW theory, predict that oceans will warm as the atmosphere warms from human CO2 emissions. Indeed, human emissions have continued to increase over the past decade but the empirical evidence clearly shows ocean temperatures have not, with declining temperatures a recent phenomenon that may continue.
There is not a single IPCC climate prediction that foretold a decade long non-warming of Earth's oceans. In fact, the "consensus" models predicted the exact opposite. The evidence is robustly inconsistent with IPCC climate "experts" and their CO2-centric climate models.
NASA annual temperature anomaly data for oceans since 2001 through 2010.
Satellite monthly temperature anomalies for oceans since 2002 through August 2011.
NOAA's NOMAD ocean monthly temperature anomalies since 1981 through July 2011.
James Hansen, and his team at NASA, predicted significant global warming (the green curve - Scenario 'A') if human CO2 emissions continued their existing growth path. They have.
The actual warming evidence though, does not comport with NASA's climate models. Per both the GISS and HadCRUT temperature datasets, global warming (black and red curves) are at, or below, the predicted values if CO2 emissions growth had been eliminated (the aqua curve - Scenario 'C'). That has not happened, based on the evidence through July, 2011.
Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists predicted that global warming would increase the frequency and intensity of stormy weather. They based these predictions on their "expert" climate models. The prediction fails the empirical test as real world evidence confirms that storminess has not increased.
Esteves et al. studied long term datasets of weather data for the Irish Sea region going back to 1894. Their peer reviewed research found no change for storminess.
"Focusing on a well-studied and data-rich 16-km-long section of the Sefton coastline of northwest England, as they describe it, Esteves et al. used the longest available measured datasets from the eastern Irish Sea and beyond -- including tide levels, surge heights, wind speeds and wave heights -- in a search for evidence of long-term changes...say their results "show no evidence of enhanced storminess or increases in surge heights or extreme water levels," and that "the evolution of the coastline analyzed at various temporal scales shows no strong connection with metocean trends."...the available metocean data "do not indicate any statistically significant changes outside seasonal and decadal cycles."" [L. S. Esteves, J. J. Williams, J. M. Brown 2011: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences]
Read here. The predictions of alarmist scientists are frequently hysterical, and most often wrong, as was globally witnessed with the Hurricane Irene forecasts. Another example of an incredibly bad "climate science" prediction was that marine life would be decimated by human-induced global warming. Scientists and empirical evidence prove that prediction wrong.
A new peer-reviewed study by Chavez et al. determined that the opposite has occurred: marine life and productivity has improved during the modern warming.
"...the three researchers -- all from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute of Moss Landing, California -- write that "general conclusions from the satellite and in situ time-series presented here are that PP [primary production] is increasing globally," and they note that global marine PP appears to have risen over the past several decades in association with multi-decadal variations in climate. In addition, they indicate that data from Continuous Plankton Recorder surveys conducted in the north Atlantic depict "increases in chlorophyll from the 1950s to the present," citing McQuartters-Gollop et al...report that ocean sediment cores containing an "undisturbed history of the past" have been analyzed for variations in PP over timescales that include the Little Ice Age...they determined that during the LIA the ocean off Peru had "low PP, diatoms and fish," but that "at the end of the LIA, this condition changed abruptly to the low subsurface oxygen, eutrophic upwelling ecosystem that today produces more fish than any region of the world's oceans...write that "in coastal environments, PP, diatoms and fish and their associated predators are predicted to decrease and the microbial food web to increase under global warming scenarios," citing Ito et al. However, they say that, "present-day trends and the sedimentary record seem to indicate that the opposite might occur."" [Francisco P. Chavez, Monique Messié, and J. Timothy Pennington 2011: Annual Review of Marine Science]
Read here. Image source. The UN's IPCC and world health experts predicted that global warming would grow the mosquito population and cause an increase in malaria incidence. There was no prediction by these "experts" that the mosquito population in portions of Africa would actually plummet and new malaria case numbers would shrivel. In fact, that is what has happened in Tanzania say scientists.
Researchers have found that the number of mosquitoes per insect trap has fallen from 5,000 to 14 over a 10-year period. This took place in villages with no DDT or bed nets. Some researchers think the decline is due climate change but there is no convincing evidence that would confirm that.
"But the lead author of the study...says that he is not convinced that it is just the changing climate..."It could be partly due to this chaotic rainfall, but personally I don't think it can explain such a dramatic decline in mosquitoes, to the extent we can say that the malaria mosquitoes are almost eradicated in these communities..."What we should consider is that there may be a disease among the mosquitoes, a fungi or a virus, or they're may have been some environmental changes in the communities that have resulted in a drop in the number of mosquitoes"...The research team also found anecdotal evidence that their discovery was not an isolated case..."Other scientists are saying they can't test their drugs because there are no children left with malaria.""
Read here. Climate "scientists" pushing the human-induced global warming hysteria have predicted that modern global warming will soon change the ENSO climate pattern and all that will remain will be a permanent El Niño. The latest peer-reviewed research, however, doesn't support that prediction.
Ivany et al. analyzed fossilized clam remains from 50 million years ago that were located in the Antarctica region. The clams existed in a climate that was at least 10 degrees warmer than modern temperatures. By analyzing clam rings, the scientists were able to determine that during that significantly hotter period, the ENSO still retained its pattern of variation from El Niño to La Niña and back.
"The prevailing theory predicts that rising global temperatures could cause the ENSO to collapse, resulting in permanent El Niño conditions, which could have a major impact on socioeconomic and ecological systems worldwide..."The good news is that despite the very warm temperatures during the Eocene, the evidence from the clams and tree rings shows that the ENSO system was still active, oscillating between normal and El Niño years. That suggests that the same will be true in our future as the planet warms up again.” [Linda C. Ivany, Thomas Brey, Matthew Huber, Devin P. Buick, Bernd R Schöne 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. Map source here. The infamous "expert consensus" that has been proven wrong on so many occasions has another climate prediction fail.
Climate scientists had claimed that sea ice coverage in the Bering Sea would shrink due to global warming and that the warmer waters would be less productive for marine life. Research by Brown et al. finds both predictions to be wrong.
"Regarded as one of the world's most productive marine environments, the Bering Sea is widely thought to be rapidly warming and losing sea ice...Results show that, rather than declining, mean annual sea ice extent in the Bering Sea has exhibited no significant change over the satellite sea ice record (1979–2009). Furthermore, significant warming during the satellite sea surface temperature record (1982–2009) is mainly limited to the summer months...we speculate that Bering Sea primary productivity is likely to rise under conditions of future warming and sea ice loss." [Zachary W. Brown, Gert L. van Dijken, Kevin R. Arrigo 2011:Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. NASA has been the heart of this nation's global warming hysteria, with the most recent evidence being just a plainly bizarre "aliens hate global warming" study published by a NASA scientist.
Another aspect of NASA's being led by the hysterics of its "scientists" is the ongoing, incredible incompetence of their climate predictions. Besides the laughable, ludicrous NASA prediction that sea levels will rise by some 82 feet by 2100, there is the never-ending prediction of a Super El Niño that never seems to happen.
This chart reveals just how wrong NASA has been with their current Super El Niño prediction. And why doesn't the public know how badly NASA has performed as a predictor of climate events? Because the mainstream press refuses to report actual climate empirical evidence to challenge the NASA press releases. That's why bloggers such as Bob Tisdale are so invaluable.
Read here. Computer programmers purposefully coded the climate model simulations to produce ENSO events that increased both in frequency and intensity, with stronger El Niños leading to more severe weather results. This was done in the belief that human CO2-induced global warming would produce such results. Unfortunately for the IPCC and its climate modelers, these simulated climate predictions were wrong.
The scientists who developed the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) refined and expanded their research to extend the MEI capabilities back to the 1870s. By doing so, they were able to analyze earlier ENSO events as compared to those of the modern era. Their work confirmed that today's El Niños and La Niñas are no different than those of a hundred years ago.
"...the two U.S. researchers describe their efforts "to boil the MEI concept down to its most essential components to enable historical analyses that more than double its period of record,"... "designed to help...differentiate between 'natural' ENSO behavior in all its rich facets, and the 'Brave New World' of this phenomenon under evolving greenhouse gas-related climate conditions.""...report that "the new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early- to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades." In fact, they state that "so far, none of the behavior of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then"...So far, there is no indication of the "fingerprint of man" in any aspect of ENSO behavior over the last few decades..." [Klaus Wolter, Michael S. Timlin 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
Read here. Honestly, sometimes the debunking of climate "settled" science feels like shooting fish in a barrel. As we have discussed often at 'C3', most of the IPCC climate predictions have proven to be wrong - certainly, one can fairly conclude that actual climate science is very unsettled at this point in time.
With that said, another debunking of an IPCC prediction has been confirmed.
Recent research by Aydin et al. established, without reservation, that methane gases had not increased as predicted by the AGW hypothesis and the UN's IPCC Climategate scientists were promulgating. In essence, the infamous "methane" tipping point is another failed climate model prognostication.
This team of researchers spent tax payer monies to speculate what happened to the IPCC's methane and, of course, to make an implied plea for more funds to investigate further. Did we say "unsettled" yet?
"Recent data from NSF-funded research in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate that fossil-fuel related emissions of both methane and ethane, two of the most abundant hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, declined at the end of the twentieth century...causes of the decline in methane emission rates to the atmosphere have been puzzling scientists for some time. This new study shows that a change in human activities may have played a key role in the recent leveling off of methane, which, being a potent greenhouse gas contributes to global temperatures..."
"We still have more research to conduct, but this discovery is significant... We must work together to continue to find ways to further our research on this very important subject." [Murat Aydin, Kristal R. Verhulst, Eric S. Saltzman, Mark O. Battle, Stephen A. Montzka, Donald R. Blake, Qi Tang, Michael J. Prather 2011: Nature]
Read here. The African region known as the Sahel lies just south of the Sahara, from the Atlantic coast to the Red Sea. The climate experts had predicted that this region of Africa would be come more arid, with a greater frequency of droughts due to global warming making it an unlivable area. That has not happened. The consensus of climate experts was wrong.
Instead, the Sahel has received more rainfall, and vegetation is growing in areas that were previously rock and sand. The greening has become so well established that agriculture has once again become viable.
"The United Nations’ Africa Report of 2008 confirmed that the greening of the Sahel is now well established and that increases in rainfall are the main driver of the change in the vegetation cover. The report noted that there was a 50% increase in vegetation in parts of Mali, Mauritania and Chad during 1982-2003. Vegetation changes play a significant role in the rainfall variability. The increase in rainfall has allowed more plants to grow, which in turn increases precipitation even more. Plants transfer moisture from the soil into the air by evaporation from their leaves and hold water in the soil close to the surface, where it can also evaporate. The darker surface of plants compared with sand also absorb more solar radiation, which can create convection and turbulence in the atmosphere which might create rainfall. Vegetation effects account for around 30 percent of annual rainfall variation in the Sahel. The increased vegetation will fix the soil, enhance its anti-wind-erosion ability, reduce the possibility of released dust and consequently cause a decline in the numbers of sand-dust storms."
Read here. Using actual ocean warming records and comparing those to IPCC climate models was recently accomplished. The purpose of doing so was to determine if model(s) sensitivity would produce predicted warming that matched the actual warming. The determination from the analysis was that the models robustly overestimated ocean warming versus actual - 3.0°C vs 1.3°C.
"The following comparison between the 20th Century runs from most (15) of the IPCC AR4 climate models, and Levitus observations of ocean warming during 1955-1999, further bolsters the case for a relatively low climate sensitivity: estimated here to be about 1.3 deg. C for a future doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is quite a bit lower than the IPCC’s best estimate of 3 deg. C warming...The observed rate of warming of the ocean has been too weak to be consistent with a sensitive climate system. This is demonstrated with the IPCC models themselves...it should be mentioned the above analysis assumes that there has been no significant natural source of warming during 1955-1999. If there has, then the diagnosed climate sensitivity would be even lower still."
Why hasn't the IPCC and the climate modeller community conducted this analysis themselves? Ahhhh....good question with an obvious answer - making failure public is painful.
Read here and here. There is ampleempirical evidence that the feared CO2-caused global warming predicted by the IPCC and climate "experts" has been dramatically fading over the last 15 years. And there is plenty of ongoing anecdotal evidence of global cooling in the past few years.
Add Wellington, New Zealand and Mt. Ranier, Washington to the anecdotal evidence list. And don't forget about Ireland's and Germany's cold summer.
Read here. (h/t Greenie Watch) The Mediterranean Sea basin is considered one ot the more vulnerable to climate change, which is a major concern since the IPCC climate models predict that global warming will result in more frequent storm activity. To test this prediction, EU researchers analyzed 7,000 years of data from sediment cores from southern France's coastal region.
Sabatier et al. analysis establishes the history of severe storm activity, which firmly indicates that severe stroms were more frequent during global cooling (ie. The Little Ice Age) than during global warming spans, such as the Medieval Warming Period.
As is often the case, the empirical evidence refutes the IPCC climate model predictions.
"This paper present a high resolution record of paleostorm events in the French Mediterrannean coast over the past 7000 years based on a long sediment core from lagoonal environment in Gulf of Lions...we have recorded seven periods of increase in storm activity at 6200, 5400, 4600-4200, 3600-3100, 2600, 1900-1500 yr cal B.P. and over the Little Ice Age...Whereas the Medieval Warm Period (1200-700 yr cal B.P.) is characterized by a low storm activity. These evidences of changes in coastal hydrodynamic are in phase with those observed over the North Atlantic and correspond to Holocene cooling evidenced associated to decreases of SST in the North Atlantic." [Pierre Sabatier, Laurent Dezileau, Christophe Colin, Louis Briqueu, Philippe Martinez, Giuseppe Siani, Frédérique Bouchette, Olivier Raynal, Ulrich Von Grafenstein 2011: International Union for Quaternary Research]
Read here and here. Climate alarmist scientists and green activist groups have led an orchestrated hysteria about global warming and climate change over recent years. Near the top of their hysteria agenda is the claim that coral reefs would be destroyed, including Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) unless CO2 emissions were halted.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study by reef experts (Pandolfi et al.) published by Science that refutes the exaggerations and imminent death-by-CO2 claims.
"The world’s largest coral reef off the east coast of Australia is not going to disappear as fast as once previously thought, according to a new study. Warnings that the Great Barrier Reef could die off due to climate change over the next 20 to 30 years are exaggerated says Sean Connolly of the James Cook University.”..."some current projections of global-scale collapse of reefs within the next few decades probably overestimate the rapidity and uniformity of the decline.”..."However reefs are naturally highly diverse and resilient, and are likely to respond to the changed conditions in different ways and at varying rates.”" [John M. Pandolfi, Sean R. Connolly, Dustin J. Marshall, Anne L. Cohen 2011: Science]
Read here. The IPCC's climate models and its "consensus" of 97% of climate scientists have proven to be robustly wrong again. The prediction that global warming will cause an increase of storms with greater frequency does not hold up to empirical-based scrutiny.
Alexander et al. published a peer-reviewed study that found storms in the southeast region of Australia showing a significant reduction since the late 19th century.
"...analyzed storminess across the whole of southeast (SE) Australia using extreme (standardized seasonal 95th and 99th percentiles) geostrophic winds deduced from eight widespread stations possessing sub-daily atmospheric pressure observations dating back to the late 19th century...The four researchers report that their results "show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the past century." More specifically, they say that "in nearly all regions and seasons, linear trends estimated for both storm indices over the period analyzed show a decrease," while "in terms of the regional average series," they say that "all seasons show statistically significant declines in both storm indices, with the largest reductions in storminess in autumn and winter." [Lisa V. Alexander, Xiaolan L. Wang, Hui Wan, Blair Trewin 2011: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal]
Read here. The IPCC and its dreary band of Climategate "scientists" had proclaimed that climate models predicted increased flooding for the U.S. Midwest due to global warming. Empirical-based scientists investigated said speculative claims and found them without merit.
Villarini et al. examined 75 years of flooding for the following states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and Illinois.
"In an effort to determine if Upper Midwest U.S. floods have been increasing in recent years..."analyzed the annual maximum instantaneous flood peak distributions for 196 U.S. Geological Survey streamflow stations with a record of at least 75 years over the Midwest U.S."...four U.S. researchers report that in the vast majority of cases where streamflow changes were observed, they were "associated with change-points (both in mean and variance) rather than monotonic trends," and they indicate that "these non-stationarities are often associated with anthropogenic effects." But rather than increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, they cite such things as "changes in land use/land cover, changes in agricultural practice, and construction of dams and reservoirs."...they conclude that "there is little indication that anthropogenic climate change has significantly affected the flood frequency distribution for the Midwest U.S." And as they make doubly clear in the abstract of their paper, they say that "trend analyses do not suggest an increase in the flood peak distribution due to anthropogenic climate change."" [Gabriele Villarini, James A. Smith, Mary Lynn Baeck, Witold F. Krajewski 2011: Journal of American Water Resources Association]
Read here. As the dotted trend line indicates on this German temperature chart, "global warming" is not so happening in Germany. The same is likely true for a number of nearby central European states.
And, to add to the AGW-alarmist scientists misery, and as most 'C3' readers are aware, "global warming" in the U.S. has actually been global cooling over the last 15 years, according to NOAA temperature datasets.
The fact that majors areas of the globe are cooling explains why warming has been trivial over the last 15 years, across the world. The lack of massive warming is a significant invalidation of the AGW hypothesis and runs counter to every major climate model based on the assumption that the climate in incredibly sensitive to human CO2 emissions.
Despite the hundreds of billions spent on these models and associated taxpayer expenditures on AGW research, the evidence is now conclusive that they are unable to predict accurately.
Read here. In order to convince political leaders and the public that global warming was endangering the world, the UN's IPCC Climategate scientists and alarmist cohorts predicted that marine life would be threatened, even endangered with species extinction.
Two scientists interested in empirical, objective science conducted research to ascertain the validity of that prediction. Their findings? The evidence says the IPCC is wrong.
This new peer reviewed research found that species richness increased both in 'well-connected' and 'low-connected' seas while these waters were warming. Map source here.
"The objective of this study was to compare how regional warming affected the biodiversity of marine fish in areas that differed in their connectivity in the Baltic Sea...The total species richness and the mean species richness from scientific surveys were related to changes in temperature and salinity...Rising temperatures in the well-connected Kattegat correlated to an increase in the species richness of fish, due to an increase in low-latitude species. Unexpectedly, species richness in the poorly connected Baltic Sea also increased." [Jan Geert Hiddink, Chris Coleby 2011: Global Ecology and Biogeography]