The dual embarrassments of the non-predicted global warming 'Pause' and the spectacular, abject failures of the wildly expensive climate models has resulted in the "experts" producing a multitude of excuses as to why the infamous AGW/CO2 hypothesis has failed, again and again....
(click on image to enlarge)
So, Watts Up With That uses this image along with an article delineating the excuses given so far for the 'Pause' and failures of the inaccurate climate models.
The list currently stands at a 10-count. But it's very likely to go higher in the near future, no?
#10. Low solar activity means less warming
#9. Warming is "hiding" in the deepest realms of the world's oceans
#8. Pollutants from Chinese coal burning blocked the warming
#7. The unintended consequences of Montreal Protocol for ozone has slowed warming
#6. Too few Arctic weather stations are reporting the predicted warming
#5.Major Minor volcanic eruptions somehow are now blocking warming
#4. Unexpected decrease of water vapor in the stratosphere slows global warming trend
#3. The changing, anti-warming Pacific's trade winds not anticipated in global climate change models
#2. Climate signals from stadium wave phenomenon interrupted predicted global warming pattern
#1. Leading government climate "experts" put it all down as "coincidence"
Now this list provides overwhelming evidence that consensus climate scientists and major government climate agencies agree this extended 'Pause' took place and continues.
Yet despite this scientific agreement, there are still those fanatical GWNs who continue to push the jihad of anti-science, scaremongering propaganda ... along with an overabundance of extremist threats.
Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot
readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All
the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle
comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on,
the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence...in addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits...
(click image to enlarge, image source of one, two, three)
...and finally, global warming skeptics believe, for a multitude of reasons, human errors/mistakes/failings have caused late 20th century global warming to be significantly overstated.
This article addresses this last point. What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world-wide warming being overstated?
Well, NOAA has actually conducted said experiment by building their U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which precisely, and automatically, measures temperature and weather conditions across the U.S. The USCRN effort is based on the concept that the best way to measure the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures is to place state-of-the-art climate stations in pristine rural areas that are little impacted by people, buildings, vehicles, equipment, asphalt and etc.
An example of one of NOAA's pristine climate measurement stations is the top image (Image #1). And the middle image depicts the location of each pristine station - there are currently 114 of them, and clearly they are well dispersed providing good U.S. coverage.
By carefully planning and maintaining these pristine stations and by using the best technology available, this large-scale experiment eliminates the following problems with the older weather measurement network:
There are no observer or transcription errors to correct.
There is no time of observation bias, nor need for correction of it.
There is no broad scale missing data, requiring filling in data from potentially bad surrounding stations. (FILNET)
There are no needs for bias adjustments for equipment types since all equipment is identical.
There are no need for urbanization adjustments, since all stations are rural and well sited.
There are no regular sensor errors due to air aspiration and triple redundant lab grade sensors. Any errors detected in one sensor are identified and managed by two others, ensuring quality data.
Due to the near perfect geospatial distribution of stations in the USA, there isn’t a need for gridding to get a national average temperature.
So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story - when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature "warming" in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months.
To clarify, this range of overstatement depends on the given new and old stations being compared. However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1°F higher than the actual temperatures.
What does this mean? Within the climate science realm, the old climate/weather station system had long been considered the best and most complete measurement network in the world. But when pitted against a brand new climate measurement system that has the best qualities that science can provide, we find that the traditional U.S. methodology is significantly overstating the "global warming" phenomenon. This means that if other countries replaced their own low quality network with NOAA's greatest and latest technology, with the best location site standards applied, we would discover that world-wide temperature increases have been wildly overstated also.
Conclusions: A large-scale NOAA experiment has proven that global warming skeptics were correct: temperature warming in the U.S. has been significantly overstated in recent decades. This NOAA experiment should be expanded to other continents and countries since it is now obvious that the combined older technology and substandard weather station sites have well overstated the global warming phenomenon. Before any further dollars are spent on climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, the world needs to upgrade their global weather/climate reporting network to the USCRN standard so that policymakers have correct temperature change mesurements to base their decisions on.
Read here (h/t Bishop Hill). The elites of the world are amazingly gullible, and because of the "elite" consensus, they remain stuck-on-perpetual-stupidity. The never-ending financial meltdown and debt crisis that keeps disrupting the global economy is a clear indication of this phenomenon.
And it appears scientists are no different.
A recent experiment confirms that scientists, due to human nature, also prefer consensus and also prefer not rocking-the-boat - it's just too uncomfortable doing otherwise. These natural traits unfortunately lead to an unquestioning gullibility, and a stuck-on-stupid mentality by most scientists.
"We showed our film to 23 Imperial College science undergraduates...We told them we had made a film to expose a scientific controversy, and wanted their input on the ethical issues. None of the students noticed anything amiss. They accepted the ‘facts’ at face value, and discussed the ethics of the fictional scandal at length. A third of the students even felt strongly enough about the issue to raise it outside of class...Our hoax seemed a great success. Even those trained to think scientifically could be duped in a Sokal-like manner by familiar conventions, expectations and prejudices...We were left with a renewed respect for the Royal Society’s famous motto, ‘Nullius in Verba’ – ‘take nobody’s word for it’. Not even our own."
This hoax experiment sheds light on why so many scientists outside the field of climate science willingly accept the CO2-doomsday pronouncements of climate "scientists" whom possess no actual empirical evidence to support their hysterical predictions of climate catastrophe.
From this 'hoax' experiment we can sadly infer: that most scientists are no different than the rest of us; indeed, they too are intellectually lazy; they too willfully prefer (desire) authority; they too fail to challenge the perceived consensus; they too easily accept hearsay, anecdotal evidence; they too are naturally gullible; and surprise, they too are human.
As the authors of this experiment conclude: ‘Nullius in Verba’ - which basically translates into not even putting your blind faith in a trained scientist. Hey, as they say on TV, the best advice is "trust no one."
Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.
Skeptics' views regarding catastrophic global warming have been proven correct - experts now believe that climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels
Read here. Climate skeptics (luke warmers and others) have long contended that the supercomputer climate models used by the IPCC and NASA have significantly overestimated the potential global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The majority of skeptics believe that any warming due to increased CO2 emissions will result in temperature increases of 2°C or less by year 2100. Recently, new peer reviewed studies by the experts have been published that reveals a new consensus being reached that confirms the skeptics' point of view: catastrophic global warming isn't in the cards.
New research on current climate models
"A collection of research results have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity"..."there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less)."..."Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming..."For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K..."
Conclusion: The alarmist predictions of catastrophic global warming have been incorrectly based on the exaggerated climate sensitivity programmed into the climate models of major climate research agencies, including those that the IPCC relies on.
The NAS has issued a report that confirms the obvious climate science disaster: billions wasted on climate models - they still can't predict squat
(click image to enlarge)
Willis Eschenbach reviews a recent National Academy of Science report on climate change and reveals nothing new has been learned - the depressing outcome remains unchanged: billions wasted on climate models.
After decades of of government bureaucrat scientists' effort, and billions invested on massive hardware and software improvements, the IPCC, NASA and NOAA climate models still predict that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 1.5°C to a 3.0°C global temperature change.
That's the same prediction that the climate models and ancient computer technology produced back in the 80's and here's how bad that "expert" prediction is looking now.
"And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail … the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979."
Conclusion:Climate models are worthless as climate change prediction tools. Literally, billions wasted on climate models without any noteworthy prognostication benefit.
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
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]
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected." JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”. JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.” JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.” JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.
Read here. What makes a hurricane? Wind speed, plain and simple. If a storm has wind speeds below 74 MPH then it is a tropical storm not a hurricane. Irene never came close to the '74' threshold. The national media never reported the true conditions of Irene.
Gee, what a surprise that the left/liberal anti-science "journalists" would misreport the weather facts.
"So, despite looking at Irene before, during, and after both landfalls, there is no hint of a hurricane anywhere. By the time it got to New York the eye of the storm had dissipated, what was left were huge bands of rain clouds. Is there a moral in this story? Well, I can understand people taking extra precautions, better safe than sorry is a good rule. And I certainly imagine that when the Weather Service re-examines the records, the error will be corrected. But that doesn’t help in making the decisions. As soon as Irene hit land, it should have been downgraded immediately to a tropical storm. That’s what it was, not a hurricane making landfall but a tropical storm. As far as I can tell, we still haven’t had a hurricane make landfall during Obama’s presidency, a historical oddity."
Read here. Is it any wonder that the liberal/left/progressive/Democrat political spectrum is falling out of favor with the public when there are clowns like Nye, Masters, McKibben, Gore and others pushing their anti-science and anti-prosperity agendas.
Dr. Ryan Maue does an excellent fisking of Bill Nye's TV performance/science regarding Hurricane Irene. It's not pretty.
"But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business...and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television!...The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota."
Read here. The news media this past week made a huge to-do of a new study claiming that species across the world were fleeing geographical locations due global warming. While immediately trumpeting this story as new and significant, the actual truth indicates this study is just warmed-up, leftover garbage from a previous study by the same "scientist."
If the press wasn't so adverse to doing even an internet investigation before publishing 'press release' research, they would have found the following about the previous study by this researcher:
"What no one seems to realize or remember is that things turned out rather badly the last time [Chris D.] Thomas’ work was similarly fêted by journalists...Nature published three separate critiques of the 2004 Thomas paper six months afterward. These were followed by challenges in other publications – including a 6,000-word evisceration by a conservation biologist at Oxford University...Daniel Botkin, who is described as “one of the preeminent ecologists of the 20th century” similarly lambasted the 2004 Thomas paper – both in the peer-reviewed literature as well as on his own blog. He’s called that study “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”
As the story indicates, again it's the blogger community that is doing the investigative reporting because the mainstream press is either to lazy and/or stupid - in essence, the MSM continues to publish climate change "science" garbage without any fact checking.
Read here. Over 2,000 previous peer-reviewed studies are severely tainted with bad data from the often used ERA-40 Reanalysis regarding Arctic region temperature trends. Researchers Screen and Simmonds concluded that this dataset should no longer be relied on in future studies, which implies that many past studies indicating Arctic warming are robustly in error.
Essentially, group-think consensus science by "experts" at its worst: "Hey...why don't we all use the same computer output for every Arctic study." Brilliant.
"This study explicitly documents a discontinuity in the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) that leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere, and demonstrates that the continuing use of ERA-40 to study Arctic temperature trends is problematic...Decadal or multidecadal Arctic temperature trends calculated over periods that include 1997 are highly inaccurate...It is shown that ERA-40 is poorly suited to studying Arctic temperature trends and their vertical profile, and conclusions based upon them must be viewed with extreme caution. Consequently, its future use for this purpose is discouraged."....."Such an error not only affects the Arctic troposphere, but necessarily must effect the entire northern hemisphere jet stream."[James A. Screen, Ian Simmonds 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. As the global warming alarmists have become ever more desperate, due to their failed arguments, every single catastrophe that is associated with a tectonic plate event they now blame on global warming. Besides earthquakes and resultant tsunamis, now its volcanoes that are being caused by excess CO2, supposedly.
So, does global warming really cause volcanic eruptions? Here's what a recent peer-reviewed study found:
"The sensitivity of volcanoes to small changes in ice thickness or to recession of small glaciers on their flanks is unknown.....Broader feedbacks between volcanism and climate change remain poorly understood.....Uncertainty about the time scale of volcanic responses to ice unloading.....Lack of data on how past changes in ice thickness have affected the style of volcanic eruptions and associated hazards.....Poor constraint on how ice bodies on volcanoes will respond to twenty-first century climate change" [Hugh Tuffen 2010: Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society]
This study by a top volcanologist indicates that science really has no idea if warming causes eruptions. But clearly, this scientist lays out the facts why he needs a lot more research funds/grants so as to find answers to the known unknowns of "AGW volcanic" activity.
Read here, here and here. Three different climate/weather professionals note the consensus idiocy and misinformation purposefully spread by the major outlets of mainstream media when the issues are global warming, climate change and weather events.
Unfortunately, America's mainstream press has become known as the 'lame-stream' press and is now regularly mocked for the constant inaccuracies and bias, self-portrayed as "objective" reporting. The global warming science debate is a prime example of the biased MSM reporting, which has driven away both viewers and readers in masses, to the point where these media titans are soon to become probable "wards of the state" ala GM, Fannie May and etc.
"Just a suggestion, if this is what the media establishment is putting out there to win over the public hearts and minds on draconian carbon taxation, then at least come up with some hardened facts.....It’s like the media, liberal politicians, and now television series scientists awoke out of a coma and are marveling about the drastic changes in the weather/climate all around them. It’s snowed before, it’s flooded before, and it will again."
"I have written many times about the fact that the scientists who believe in global warming tend to be the ones who have not studied meteorology or related sciences. We had another of these interviews on NBC's "Today" show.....It would be nice if the television media actually quoted someone who knows something about how the weather (which is what the Northeast storms are) actually works."
Read here. UK elites and scientists have made some incredibly stupid statements over the years about global warming, with one of dumbest being that alligators will be "basking" off Sweden. Now we have a group of UK "scientists" speculating that global warming might actually cause spontaneous combustion, in spite of the massive global cooling conditions that are currently plaguing civilization. Seriously, the Brits are talking about "spontaneous combustion," just like what might be found in a Harry Potter wizard fantasy.
"A fast-warming world could transform those peatlands into a "compost bomb" that would dump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, British researchers have calculated.....The rapid rise in the temperature of peat that would follow the "compost bomb" scenario could even cause spontaneous combustion..."
The literal AGW-craziness that has consumed the UK science community has now advanced to some bizarre combination of mad cow deranged Monty Pythonism. The good news is that this level of UK bizarreness delivered the Climategate death blow to Copenhagen last year, and will do the same to the Cancun climate conference this year. Hey, thank goodness for small favors - in this case, the UK's natural island in-bred idiocy.
Note to incoming congressional Republicans: Any U.S. taxpayer dollars that are financing UK scientists should be stopped immediately. Every single UK scientist (all UK scientists, not just the climate research scientists) deserves to be cutoff permanently from the U.S. research money spigot. Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar should ever be spent on any UK research effort in the future. Cutting the parasitical Brit scientists off once-and-for-all will prove your bona fides that you are serious about curtailing worthless waste and frivolous spending. Cutting the Brits off is an instant winner for the voters (name one voter in your district who would object) and a win-win for real science, not the Hogwart type the UK scientists embrace.
Read here. A National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist, who is seeking more global warming funding from taxpayers for his institution, released a study based on 22 climate models. The climate models in this study erroneously project future drought for heavily populated areas across the globe. Why do we say erroneously? For multiple reasons:
#1. In the most scientific terms we can conjure up - climate models can't predict squat. Both peer-reviewed studies and actual observational evidence confirm the total prediction failures of climate models and "expert" scientists.
#5. This study's specific prediction about drought is completely reliant on the climate models being able to first successfully predict sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and major ocean oscillations (e.g. El Niño). Climate models are unable to do either, as the NCAR scientist admits:
"“Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.” [Aiguo Dai, 2010]
“Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].
Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting changes in the frequency of drought in the future."
As is the usual routine, a U.S. climate scientist using taxpayer funds releases a study that is designed to promote fear based solely on defective climate models. The ultimate purpose of such climate model fearmongering is to assure the billions keep flowing to the climate modeling scientists and research centers. It's as simple as that.
Computer model predictions from a virtual simulated climate are functionally worthless. For a multitude of reasons, climate simulation models will continue to fail at the task of predicting usable/actionable global climate forecasts. (click on images to enlarge)
Update: More proof that IPCC climate models don't work as claimed. Another update: "This paper reinforces two issues that have repeatedly been made on my weblog: The multi-decadal IPCC global climate models, which have predicted more-or-less perpetual drought in the southwestern United States, are failing in their regional prediction."
Yet, climate science and policy has been bedeviled by the extreme over-reliance on these virtually simulated climate projections. Like a crack addiction, the elites have become addicted to the faulty prediction output of these models, regardless of what the empirical climate data and observations say otherwise. The scientists, politicians, pundits and celebrities of the "elite" class have become so blinded by the "rush" of virtual climate global warming predictions that rationale and cost-effective solutions became literally impossible to civilly discuss/debate, let alone implement.
Unfortunately, the addiction to computer model forecasts is not restricted to climate science. The elites on "model-crack" exist throughout government, industry and the mainstream press, and they continue to be amazed at the gross failures of computer predictions, even those failures in the realm of simplicity (like the housing market) in comparison to the chaotic, complex computer models of the climate.
Read here. A recent study by alarmist scientists has implicated global warming as the cause of a 50% reduction of the oceans' phytoplankton over the last century. Fortunately for humanity and the oceans, the study seems to be fairly lame in terms of science:
1. There are numerous places in extremely warm sea waters where plankton thrives.
2. Plankton populations appear to be better correlated to water nutrient abundance, not temperatures.
3. Increased CO2 from human emissions should have increased the plankton population since it is a major nutrient.
4. The likelihood that a 4/10's of a degree increase in sea temperatures would cause a 50% reduction in marine life is essentially a ludicrous finding.
So, if there actually has been a 50% reduction in sea plankton, and if global warming isn't the culprit, then what is? Very possibly it's the intensive overfishing practiced by humans that is the cause:
"The problem is that we have fished out the oceans. Only 10% of the large fish found in the oceans in 1950 remain. And we have been over-fishing the oceans far longer than just the last 60 years. Even back in 1950, people were already noticing a reduction in stocks of whales, salmon, cod, halibut, and other fish. We probably have less than 10% of the large fish and whale stocks that were present before we began harvesting the seas in earnest...Where does the nitrogen that phytoplankton require come from? At the the mid-ocean levels, some comes from nitrogen fixing bacteria, but the rest comes from excrement in the form of urea and ammonia from bacteria breaking down protein as carcasses decompose. Iron, molybdenum, and phosphates come from the same sources. But remember we are removing large amounts of fish protein from the ocean, especially whale, tuna, shark, and other large fish. 90% of what was there is now gone. We are removing more every year. The fish products are no longer available to the phytoplanktons. Their food supply has diminished. They are starving."
Read here (and if there's time, read the enlightening comments also). Climate science's plunge into the toilet continues. Would it not be appropriate for a scientist attempting to prove a hypothesis that the waters around Antarctica are warming (and will warm even more!) would at least check the real observed data? Guess not. (Update: Further analysis of this study's bogosity.) (click on image to enlarge)
And, of course, the peer-review journal's editors who published this
study were either too stupid or too lazy to look at the basic data
Unfortunately, there are prominent AGW-agenda driven climate scientists who will claim or insinuate that specific weather events are a result of "global warming" or are "consistent" with AGW. NASA's Gavin Schmidt is such a scientist. The recent Moscow regional weather heat wave is his latest global warming insinuation:
"If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet."
The major problem with Gavin, and scientists of his ilk, is the total disregard of actual science, such as the fact that meteorology scientists know the cause of the Russian heat wave (and the Pakistani floods); and, scientists know that this exact same type of heat wave has happened before during the 1930's.
Gavin and his friends practice a unique form of climate science malpractice by using specific weather events as stimulating climate porn, and of course, catastrophic global warming catnip.
Instead of bashing Gavin and his "science" comrades with words, let's have the visuals explain the Twilight Zone of Gavin Schmidt's climate science. Episode synopsis: In this 2010 summer episode, red-pink areas represent "GLOBAL WARMING-CLIMATE CHANGE" and the blueish areas are just your typical summer cool weather incidents. Obviously, AGW "global" climate change is just soooo fiendish because it temporarily hides in regional/local areas, never revealing itself as the "global" sinister monstrosity it actually is in Gavin's Twilight Zone.
Click on images to enlarge. Top image from here; bottom image from here.
Read here. Global warming scare myths have been very effective tools employed by the the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen to frighten the undereducated and science illiterates, such as Hollywood celebrities and MSM journalists/pundits. One of the most effective scare myths has been the imminent West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) collapse, due to human CO2-induced global warming, which will raise sea levels to extraordinary heights. Luckily for humanity, the actual ice sheet science reveals the Gore/Hansen scare myth to be without merit - in other words, fraudulent speculation.
What's important to know is that the peer-reviewed science has determined that a WAIS collapse has not even happened when temperatures were significantly warmer in the ancient past. And, if it were to happen in the future, it would take thousands of years of ludicrously high, and sustained, southern ocean temperatures (not air). In summary, not bloody likely, mate.
"And once started, he says that the transition time for a total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would range from "one thousand to several thousand years," which time period, in his words, "is nowhere near the century timescales for West Antarctic ice-sheet decay based on simple marine ice-sheet models," such as have been employed in the past.....the specter of 21st-century sea level rise being measured in meters -- as hyped by Al Gore and James Hansen -- can be seen to be receding ever further into the distance of unreality. What is more, and in spite of the current interglacial's current relative coolness, the Vostok ice core data indicate that the current interglacial has been by far the longest stable warm period of the entire 420,000-year record, which suggests we are probably long overdue for the next ice age to begin, and that we may not have the "5 to 50 centuries" that O'Neill and Oppenheimer suggest could be needed to bring about the WAIS disintegration subsequent to the attainment of whatever temperature in excess of 4 or 5°C above the current global mean would be needed to initiate the process...In conclusion, therefore, it would appear that the climate-alarmist vision of impending WAIS collapse and disintegration is nothing more than an ill-founded hallucination."
Read here. In an AAAS magazine publication, there is an amazing admission that actual CO2 emissions, human and natural, are unknown. Present CO2 emissions quoted as "truth" are nothing more than back-of-envelope guesstimates. Climate alarmists scientists now admit they have no clue about the quantities of CO2 emissions, nor the sources of all CO2 emissions. To simply summarize the significance of this admission: All the IPCC climate models are wrong.
At this point, everyone should be questioning the sanity of proceeding with the draconian economic solutions proposed by scientists to curb human CO2 emissions. But true to form, the scientists are demanding more monies to "fix" their ignorance problem.
"How can you control GHG emissions when you cannot accurately identify their sources? And how can you blame the rise in atmospheric CO2 solely on humanity if you cannot reconcile actual emissions with atmospheric measurements? The answer is that you cannot. To try and shore up the case for emissions control—including all those calls for “cap and trade” and a carbon tax—the authors want to establish a global network to provide a “top down” assessment of anthropogenic emission.....The solution, they say, is to send more money. More money for more instruments, more money for more studies, and more money for more computer models. In the meantime, governments and the public are expected to take concrete actions to curb GHG emissions based on climate science's self-professed inaccurate predictions. They guess and everyone else sacrifices."
Read here. The best U.S scientists made predictions for solar power during the first energy "crisis." How good were their predictions? Terrible, which is the the usual outcome with expert predictions, including 99.99% of all climate change predictions that the gullible-MSM faithfully repeats from the scientist press releases.
In comparison to the simple solar power market, it is often said that Earth's climate is the most complex system known because it incorporates these characteristics: non-linear, chaotic, and coupled. These three attributes should invoke immense climate scientist humility, but they don't seem to. In addition, for these numerous fundamental reasons (besides the déjà vu of experts always being wrong) the public and policymakers should outright reject any notion that climate predictions from scientists and climate models have any real-world validity.
Read here. The corruption of climate science and the resulting scientific fraud continues to plague the overall science community. Globally, the public belief in catastrophic global warming has declined, which can be mainly attributed to the bogus climate model crisis claims that climate change scientists have relied on, instead of the proven scientific experiment/observational methodology.
But why has this bogus science methodology become the preferred technique of the global warming science community?
"As they say, follow the money. Remember Indiana Jones’ immortal words: “Fortune and glory.”.....Too many people in government, wealthy foundations and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge. They intend to implement those policies – and global warming scare stories are key to achieving that objective. They’re pouring tens of billions of dollars into the effort.....Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much money can corrupt, or at least skew the science."
Read here. The idiocy of climate alarmist scientists knows now bounds. They will take the flimsiest of evidence, and for purely political reasons, publicize it as a major climate risk due to carbon dioxide emissions. Because mainstream media reporters and editors share the same political agenda as the climate scientists, headlines like this are created:
"Melting icebergs causing sea level rise"
Of course, that "sea level rise" is only 49 micrometers per year, as the scientists explain, which amounts to a 1 inch increase per 526 years. If climate alarmist scientists were not so desperate to politicize every nano-crumb of evidence into a world crisis, this type of information would barely make page 11 of National Enquirer, let alone major metropolitan dailies.
Memo to Judith Curry, the skeptics' favorite climate alarmist scientist: As this sea level rise story indicates, the politicization of climate science problem, and the harm done to true science, is not the result of Senator Inhofe, Marc Morano, and Rush Limbaugh. The original roots of the politicization of climate science, and its continuous maintenance, depends on such luminaries as: A. Gore, T. Wirth, Obama, J. Holdren, P. Erlich, M. Strong, Ted Turner, Paul "You're Treasonous" Krugman, Tom Friedman, P. Jones, B. Santer, Overpeck, M. Mann, K. Trenberth and a large cornucopia of others. If you don't understand the level of politicization expounded by such people, and their true objectives, then read what they have to say.
In the meantime, your political commentary regarding skeptics is ludicrous and self-serving. If you want the politicization to stop, hold your nose and go talk (complain) to your alarmist overlords.
The revelation that the decision to close Europe’s skies following last week’s eruption of an unpronounceable Icelandic volcano, and the spewing of ash into the sky, was triggered by advice from the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre of the UK Met Office, based not on all relevant empirical evidence but on their computer model, has led to no small controversy... the Met Office spokesman claimed that this was irrelevant, since the policy in force was one of 'zero tolerance'. This, of course, is complete idiocy (and is conspicuously not the policy in the US, whose air safety record is as good as Europe's). It is, however, the so-called precautionary principle again – and indeed only a few days ago the Eurocontrol spokeswoman was explicitly justifying the original blanket flying ban on the grounds of the precautionary principle.
As we have stated multiple times before, computer models are worthless when used as a basis for making major policy decisions, including those regarding climate change. Unless the computer "prediction" is based on hard physics and well-established, scientifically known relationships, the computer models can end up being more dangerous for society than the theoretical calamity they are predicting. This is especially true when the models are used in combination with the infamous total-risk-avoidance precautionary principle to justify imposing major decisions and regulatory actions.
The recent Iceland volcano eruption and the subsequent closing of European airspace for an extended period is just the most recent massive computer model failure and clear evidence of the harm these models do. In a nutshell, the computer model prediction of Iceland volcano ash and its atmospheric spread was used by government policy makers to close major portions of EU airspace to aircraft for multiple days. This major decision was not based on scientific evidence nor actual observations.
As real-world data poured in though, the volcanic ash cloud actually was not a threat to European aircraft, but the tremendous economic damage and disruption imposed by the toxic combination of the the precautionary principle and the computer models had already been done. The end result is a human manufactured disaster, based on computer junk output, that is facilitated by alarmist scientists and politicians, who are incapable of moderating their hysteria that is so publicly infectious, and that is sooo coveted by the mainstream press.
Read here. The coastal elites, who have serious delusions of grandeur and omniscience disorders, are just now learning that climate models have been ineffective (okay, absolute failures). Between the coasts where reality exists, it is common knowledge that the computer models are worthless and not getting any better, despite researchers wasting billions on the models.
"....said that climate models are highly flawed. He said the scientists who build them don't know enough about solar cycles, ocean temperatures and other things that can nudge the earth's temperature up or down. He said that because models produce results that sound impressively exact, they can give off an air of infallibility....if the model isn't built correctly -- its results can be both precise-sounding and wrong...."The hubris that can be associated with a model is amazing, because suddenly you take this sketchy understanding of a process, and you embody it in a model," and it appears more trustworthy...."It's almost like money laundering.""
Her new job appears to be promoting the faux science of climate models, which just about everyone now knows are a total joke, except for those individuals who have a strong contempt for empirical, objective, testable science, like the bimbo.
This week, she announced that her models have secretly told her that the northern U.S. may experience less freezing during future March months, some 50 to 90 years from now. She felt obligated to the world to share the climate model make-believe "predictions" - lucky us. Unfortunately for Heidi though, the empirical, objective science just keeps mocking her and her models.
"If Climate Central’s press release theory were correct, we would expect to have already seen an increase in March temperatures, and an increase in number of years above freezing....Conclusion: Based on the NCDC data, there is no evidence that increases in CO2 over the last 30 years have affected March temperatures in the north central region of the USA or moved the freeze line north. Once again, we see a case of scientists trusting climate models ahead of reality."
"The alarmists at Climate Central (slogan: “Sound science & vibrant media”) have an interactive map showing the area projected to be above freezing in the coming decades. They say “US temperatures have been warming over the last century, and climate scientists expect much more of the same in the future....average March temperature for Minnesota from 1970 to 2009....has had only one March above freezing since the mid 1980s and a declining trend since the mid-1970s....If only their science was as sound as their media are vibrant."
Here's what James Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia Hypothesis, thinks of the bimbo's favored climate model predictions:
“We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to
the climate in 50 years, or whatever,” said Lovelock. “It's almost
naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate
predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's
wrong to do it.”"
Read here and here. Another social scientist decides he can do the "global-warming" blame game like any other AGW-researcher seeking new funding. He claims "irrefutable" study showing that warming causes more violence, aka crime. Unfortunately for this researcher, the global crime statistics don't support his "science." It so happens that colder climates report more crime than their warmer brethren, other than a single Caribbean island country.
The EU appears to have a serious problem with crime and it is occurring in the countries with the colder climates. (Remember the violence of Copenhagen Conference, 2009?) Obviously, these countries present a very inhospitable climate, literally and figuratively. They need some serious global-warming to happen, ASAP. Top ten crime countries:
1. Iceland; 2. Sweden; 3. New Zealand; 4. Grenada; 5. Norway; 6. England and Wales; 7. Denmark; 8. Finland; 9. Scotland; 10. Canada
H/T: Watts Up With That regarding global crime map (click on link above)
Read here. Obama and other ill-informed progressive-leftist-liberal elites have literally gone on record stating that the world has been experiencing more frequent storms and more severe storms. They continue to state these untruths despite allscientificevidence pointing to the opposite. In the case of Europe, researchers again looked at the storminess question and found there was no long-term trend, just a natural cycle of storm activity, decades in length.
Note: Observers often wonder how the climate debate become so bitter and controversial. This current condition is primarily due to leftist/liberals non-scientific belief in human caused climate catastrophes, which no degree of scientific knowledge or evidence, which counters their belief model, will be accepted. They resemble the non-scientific Creationists' attitude towards evolution science; react similarly as all the Hollywood nutter celebrities when told that science has proven wrong their ludicrous belief that vaccines cause autism; and glibly repeat idiocy at the level of 9/11, nut-job "Truthers." So, the next time you here Obama claiming global warming causes a snowstorm, just remember the source is an urban, political elite who will always buy into urban myths devoid of science fact. And, btw, that's why many "elites" sound so stupid to those Americans that possess common sense and a belief in actual scientific evidence. (click on image to enlarge)
"Bärring and Fortuniak do not waste any words with their conclusions....They state “(1) There is no significant overall long-term trend common to all indices in cyclone activity in the North Atlantic and European region since the Dalton minimum. (2) The marked positive trend beginning around 1960 ended in the mid-1990s and has since then reversed. This positive trend was more an effect of a 20th century minimum in cyclone activity around 1960, rather than extraordinary high values in 1990s."
"They examine many other studies in their review article, and conclude (LIA is the Little Ice Age) “The analysis of documentary records, discontinuous instrumental data and proxy records indicate that the period of the LIA (AD 1570–1900) included periods of enhanced storminess relative to present."
Read here. There are only a few left-wing hypocrites who can get away with predicting stupid things and still become a billionaire. For the rest, making stupid predictions is, er....well...dumb. Yet they keep making the dumb predictions and they always seem to be wrong.
Here is historical information about droughts, which are heavily influenced by solar conditions and ocean oscillations, not CO2.
Read here. As many elites know, Tommy "The Palace" Friedman, a famous pundit, and Joey "The Strangler" Romm, a famous partisan, leftist scientist, have formed a "global-weirding" tag-team to help educate the readership of the New York Times about climate science, since it's so confusing now days. For example, when you experience a cold summer and then a cold, snowy winter, it's really not global cooling that's causing it, it's global warming, so we need to call it global-weirding instead because global warming causes all sorts of weird stuff, even though it really seems like global cooling. Got it? No? Well that's why the elites need Tommy and Joey to help them.
In addition to global-weird weather, why else do the reading elite of the New York Times need the help of such a spectacular duo? Well, it gets kind of complicated real fast: there's that whole Gore/Soros 'save-our-carbon-free-investments' thing going on that Tommy and Joey are helping out with, plus the proverbial wheels on the global warming/climate change circus wagon have fallen off over the past three months. Knowing that his readers may have found this out from alternative sources, Friedman decided a global-weirding "offensive" tactical surge was needed. I kid you not.
Because this is a global-weirding crisis situation, we also want to be of help to those incredibly intelligent elites that are so dependent on the brilliance of Tom and Joe. With that in mind, we present the below temperature chart for the NYT readers' review, as a reasonable starting point to simplify what's going on. (click on image to enlarge)
What is this chart saying? On the left side of the chart is reality withcurrent global temperatures at 14.5°C. The five trend lines extending out from 2009 to year 2100 represent semi-reality: these are trends based on observed past temperatures. More than likely, the year 2100 temperature will fall within the range of the low and high trends.
The green star on the right side of the chart represents the 2100 temperature that will be reached if CO2 doubles from its 1880 base level (for a doubling of CO2, physics estimates that the global average temperature will increase 1.2 degrees, give or take a few tenths). The gold star represents the peak of Medieval temperatures that may have been reached per recent peer-reviewed, paleo-climate research.
Those purple stars on the right side? They represent pure fantasy, not reality. They are climate model predictions, which means that the observed-based trends will literally have to miraculously jump up to reach those climate model fantasy stars. How do Tom and Joe think that will happen? Well, it's by that old, black magic called "positive feedback," which, by the way, has never happened before - supposedly, all of a sudden, the climate becomes a runaway thermal heat dynamo, melting the entire earth within a few hundred years. Really, that's what they think (or, at least what they want us to believe). Now that you have regained consciousness, please notice the very top purple star. There it is. The infamous Friedman/Romm prediction, which easily wins our C3 "Bozo" prediction label.
Note: Friedman might complain about his being saddled with this prediction, but he's the one taking the advice of Romm, a paid Soros, leftist hack who isn't a climate scientist, which he certainly informed his readers of, right? I wonder if the elite readers also know that "The Strangler" blamed global warming for the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis? Or, that Romm seems to favor McCarthyism tactics. (Ya know, seriously, "The Palace" might just want to reconsider his "expert" global-weirding, tag-team partner.)
Read here. Although advocates of global warming like to portray climate models as science, it's fact that modeling is nothing but wishful thinking via number crunching. When a business uses an Excel spreadsheet, which incorporates a lot of complex formulas, to predict the next four quarters of sales, is that science? If it is used to predict next 30 years of sales, is that science? In reality, climate models are no more than giant, complex spreadsheets using thousands of formulas to produce non-scientific predictions - that is not science, it's number crunching much the same as what a business does.
"Most everyone has heard the recent announcement that Global Warming has
been put on hold for 20 to 30 years. Earth's variable climate continues
to make fools of climate scientists, obstinately refusing to follow the
IPCC's climate change script. Why? Because the climate change
doomsayers put their faith in computer models, not in hard science....they are still using the outputs of the same models that didn't predict
the current cooling trend. The same models that have never correctly
predicted Earth's climate. Climate modeling has become a crutch for a
previously ignored scientific community that has been thrust into the
public light by the global warming scare. They don't have real
scientific answers so they use their wonky models, hope for the best
and keep asking for more grant money."
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)."
In recent news, NASA/GISS has been trumpeting that the decade ending 2009 was the warmest ever (since 1880) to much fanfare and the continuous repetition by the MSM reporters. For many, GISS claiming anything about their heavily manipulated and fabricated temperatures generates a natural skeptical response. For other knowledgeable persons, the warming is of no surprise since the Earth has been warming from the cessation of the Little Ice Age. It is more than obvious the latest decade should be the warmest based on, well....the obvious - it just naturally happens.
As the GISS scientists seem to be constantly propagandizing that this day, this week, this month, this year, this whatever is always the "warmest" and is thus leading to "unprecedented" temperature change and "runaway" temperature trends, then this past "warmest" decade, when put into context, should clearly indicate all these fears are legitimate, not hype. To test for the hype hypothesis, we use the NCDC global decadal temperatures (instead of the GISS maladjusted temperatures) and respective CO2 level per cent changes below. It's no surprise to skeptics that a different picture is revealed versus the B.S. that GISS and the MSM are constantly shoveling. (click image to enlarge)
As the graph depicts, the "warmest" decade does not quite cut the thresholds of "unprecedented" or the "runaway" propaganda that is being constantly pushed. And, it's no wonder the GISS folks really don't want to tell the MSM about the nasty warm 1930's which has a larger temperature increase, or the the 1950's, or even the second decade of the 20th century, which also had a hefty temperature increase - unfortunately, it ruins the whole meme about the past decade. Another interesting aspect of the chart is the relationship between percentage increases for CO2 levels and actual temperature changes across a decade. As one can observe, there really is no relationship, which is a definite embarrassment for GISS management and the bogus "human CO2 is causing temperatures to increase" AGW hypothesis.
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
"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."
Read here, here, and here. Some scientists involved in the Climategate scandal (emanating out of the UK's CRU facility) were also participants in determining the historical CO2 levels to be used in climate models. They established that pre-industrial CO2 levels (see solid green curve on chart below) were at a 270/280 ppm level in the atmosphere. This level was first determined by a single earlier scientist cherry-picking only selected CO2 data readings that matched his desired low CO2 level goal; and later, scientists had difficulties matching the ice core CO2 data with the previous cherry-picked CO2 records, so they just "adjusted" the ice core CO2 data to fit their needs. Obviously, as with the "adjusted" temperatures scandal, Climategate-type science has infected the CO2 data.
In summary, there is strong empirical evidence that pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels were some 15 to 30% higher than IPCC assumes. This means that IPCC climate model' formulas are based on incorrect, "adjusted" CO2 data.
This chart shows human CO2 emissions and CO2 atmospheric levels (IPCC estimated "adjusted" levels from ice cores and probable actual historical levels from non-ice core data). (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. The global warming Copenhagen crisis-extravaganza is most certainly a modern example of the media created 'madness of crowds' and the embarrassingly, extreme "scientific" delusion of elites. How this is occurring in the 21st century is simply astounding, but there is definite precedents:
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
Read here. A major problem in discerning climate fact from fiction is the outright fraud and/or misrepresentation of climate science that is being conducted by government officials, climate alarmist scientists, and environmental groups. The "scientific" claims made by these individuals, official, and groups are most often....
Read here. It's pretty evident that Obama has a truth allergy, which would make Spock blush green. And there is always that science + logic thing that Spock pulls on Dr. McCoy. Like, for example, if the scientific evidence (temperatures) goes the opposite of what is hypothesized by the theory, for let's say some 10+ years, Spock would state it's only logical that the theory (AGW) is illogical. Now, add to this that the Obama administration has chosen to passively condone the scientific fraud of Climategate, and the end result in reality is that Obama is the Anti-Spock as well as some other 'anti' personages more than likely.
Finally, this AP report by Seth Borenstein is just another example of the fantastic, liberal-leftist science reporting that the mainstream press science reporters are now producing, NOT. It's bad, and getting much, much worse. Actually, it's a national disgrace that serious journalism has fallen to this level. The Copenhagen (COP15) reporting will be a travesty.
Read here and here. Seems some jellyfish are growing in size and population but no one has done the research to determine why these changes are happening. The press has decided the global warming and climate change are the culprits, without any evidence to back up those semi-hysterical claims. It could be that warming has indeed caused an increase, and then again, it could be as one writer states: "Increasingly polluted
waters—off China, for example—boost growth of the microscopic plankton
that "jellies" feed upon, while overfishing has eliminated many of the
jellyfish's predators and cut down on competitors for plankton feed."
Regardless of the slime and stinging of a growing population of jellyfish, there are benefits they bring to the climate, such as sequestering huge amounts of CO2 as they descend to bottom of ocean in death, much like another sea creature named thaliaceans.
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.
Read here, here, and here. Gore and his global warming CO2-acolytes frequently make statements about the existing Venus planet hothouse and how Earth would become the same due to human CO2 emissions. A totally bogus, and never-will-happen, claim that low IQ political and MSM "elites" believe in and promulgate.
Read here. As the evidence keeps pouring in about the failures of the global warming theory and climate models based on it, it's only a matter of time before this branch of climate science is banished forever.
Read here. Whether it's the IPCC tree ring climate scientists or the IPCC climate modelers or the IPCC chief, one can always expect answers that are either off-the-wall or on the verge of falsehoods. General rule of thumb: don't trust anyone from the IPCC.