C3

Siberian-Arctic Tundra Thawing Creates Negative Feedback, Opposite of AGW Climate Model Predictions, Experts Find

Read here. Climate models, based on the AGW alarmist theory, predict that as permafrost thaws from human CO2-induced global warming more CO2 and methane stored in permafrost will be released into the atmosphere. This new release of greenhouse gases will then also increase atmospheric temperatures, a continuous positive feedback according to the models. The latest peer-reviewed research by Blok et al. discovers there is a negative feedback that offsets the thawing and further release of gases.

When the permafrost thaws, the the accelerated expansion and growth of deciduous shrubs set off by warming, shades the the tundra and prevents further thawing - this cooling of the tundra is a negative feedback.

"Blok et al. say their results suggest that "the expected expansion of deciduous shrubs in the Arctic region, triggered by climate warming, may reduce summer permafrost thaw," and that the "increased shrub growth may thus partially offset further permafrost degradation by future temperature increases," while in further support of their conclusion, the six scientists write that (1) permafrost temperature records "do not show a general warming trend during the last decade (Brown and Romanovsky, 2008), despite large increases in surface air temperature," that (2) during the decade before that, "data from several Siberian Arctic permafrost stations do not show a discernible trend between 1991 and 2000 (IPCC, 2007)," and that (3) "a recent discovery of ancient permafrost that survived several warm geological periods suggests that vegetation cover may help protect permafrost from climate warming (Froese et al., 2008)." And last of all, they note that this phenomenon "could feedback negatively to global warming, because the lower soil temperatures in summer would slow down soil decomposition and thus the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere."" [Blok, D., Heijmans, M.M.P.D., Schaepman-Strub, G., Kononov, A.V., Maximov, T.C. and Berendse, F.]

Other climate model failures.

'California Dreamin': Global Warming Fears & Big Govt Regulations Destroy The 'Dream'

Not too long ago, California was a cornucopia of freedom and prosperity, envied by the entire world, as well as many Americans. Over the last 20 years though, big government loving politicians and bureaucrats have so trashed the state's economy that it has become a banana republic, teetering on financial collapse - a golden dream turned into a nightmare, so-to-speak.

The rapid California decline can be directly traced to the state's progressives/liberals/leftists embracing any issue that calls for greater government regulation, control and taxation. Global warming is such an issue and because of big government spenders and regulators, it promises to make life even more miserable for individual taxpayers and for the small and medium-sized businesses.

The literal craziness of California's global warming fears has resulted in the anti-prosperity legislation known as AB32, and anti-choice regulations, such as banning black paint for new cars. For those paying attention, it is more than obvious that government control and tax revenue sources are the motivations driving the "global warming" laws and rules, not actual California warming or saving the world.

(click on images to enlarge) The graph on the left depicts the total cumulative global emissions (about 1.1 trillion tons) from 1946-2009, and the average California annual temperature over the last two decades. Clearly, California does not have a "global warming" problem caused by humanity's large increase in CO2 emissions. In addition, "global" warming is actually regional warming, and the U.S. is a major region that is not warming at all.

IPCC and climate alarmist scientists inform us that every human CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years, incessantly causing temperatures to increase. Thus, per the IPCC scientists, per the AGW theory and per the global temperature data (NCDC global temperature data), the cumulative 1.1 trillions tons of CO2 has caused an actual global temperature increase of about 0.44 degrees Celsius since 1945. That translates into an increase of 0.0000000000004 degree per ton of human CO2. With a little more arithmetic, we can then calculate what will happen to global temperatures if all 400 million tons of annual California CO2 were reduced to zero - the answer is nada, zilch, zero and nothing. The chart on the right reveals the impact of the California CO2 reductions on global temperatures.

(For more information about the trivial impact of CO2 reductions on global temperatures, go here and here for more information.)

So, the California politicians and bureaucrats are fighting the imaginary global warming problem, which does not exist for California, the U.S., nor many large regions of the globe. For the citizens of California, fighting this and other imaginary problems for the sake of empowering and enriching the state's elites has had terrible consequences, as documented below.

Above left chart source; right chart source.

 
Above left is 'C3' chart; right chart source.

Simply put, California's big government, big green and big bureaucrat elites have single-handedly changed California from the envy of the world to a laughingstock. Not only is unemployment in California terrible - it has gotten so bad that even '60 Minutes' is claiming that California unemployment exceeds 20% - California also has the 2nd highest home foreclosure rate and easily the worst credit rating in the nation. Did we say 'banana republic'?

Despite the gross incompetence of California's ruling class, they still enjoy the support of the wealthy and privileged. As a result, many of the world's largest CO2 spewers are in favor of the economy destroying AB32 - they know full well that they themselves will be able to avoid CO2-spewing restrictions because they are favored by the existing left/liberal big government ruling class.

Fortunately, Californians have the opportunity to seize control from the incompetent elites by voting for the suspension of the "global warming" AB32 regulations and voting out the big government politicians who have facilitated the total economic disaster that California is headed for.

Duke Scientists Accuse Global-Warming of Summer Rainfall Variation: Evidence Finds It 'Not Guilty'

Read here. As most will remember, Duke University's academic community and administration supported a fact-challenged accusation of its lacrosse team members regarding a reported rape crime, which ultimately was proven to be totally bogus. It would seem the Duke faculty is quick to accuse if it is politically convenient and correct. Apparently this proclivity also hold trues for their "climate scientists."

A new study by Duke "scientists" claims summer rainfall, within the Southeast region of the U.S., has become more variable due to global warming, the grant-funded scientist's favorite boogieman. Unfortunately for these Duke scientists, again the evidence does not support their politically correct hypothesis (accusation?). (click on image to enlarge)

As NASA data indicates, "global warming" has been pretty sparse over the last decade, especially in the U.S. and the Southeast region. In fact, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) reports the Southeast region has experienced slight global cooling since 1895 through September, 2010.

As far as summer rainfall claim by Duke "scientists"? The above NCDC data clearly shows that summer rainfall has always been highly variable. As the 10-year average (red curve) shows, recent Southeast summer rainfall levels are not unusual nor unprecedented. In addition, as the chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels (black dots) seemingly have no impact on summer rainfall.

Another Climate Model Failure: Models Fail To Predict Northern Hemisphere's Significant Wind Reduction

Read here and here. Obviously, wind is a major component of the climate but a new peer-reviewed study documents a reduction in wind speed over 30 years, which IPCC climate models failed to predict. Currently, there is no widely accepted reason as to why this has happened.

"Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain. Here, we analyse the extent and potential cause of changes in surface wind speeds over the northern mid-latitudes between 1979 and 2008, using data from 822 surface weather stations. We show that surface wind speeds have declined by 5–15% over almost all continental areas in the northern mid-latitudes, and that strong winds have slowed faster than weak winds." [Robert Vautard, Julien Cattiaux,Pascal Yiou, Jean-Noël Thépaut, & Philippe Ciais]

One possible reason is that climate models incorrectly deal with water vapor condensation, which another peer-reviewed study has documented. [Makarieva A.M., Gorshkov V.G., Sheil D., Nobre A.D., Li B.-L]

"This has potentially far-reaching consequences for a proper description of pretty much any meteorological behavior. The changes of pressure after condensation also generally produce winds - so it's clear that the existing climate models can't say anything reliable about the winds, either. The typical climate models used today are an example of the GIGO principle - garbage in, garbage out."

Global Cooling Is Here, Pt. XIII: Where's The Freaking Global-Warming Promised Us!

Over the last ten years, the MSM reporters have pushed the myth-story that "global warming" was happening and dangerous. Yet NASA publishes data that the majority of the world has not been warming, and in fact, many areas have been cooling. Unfortunately for humanity, that cooling is worsening and spreading, which will cause much misery (with exception of ski resorts). h/t to Tom Nelson for many of these stories.

Ocean oscillations and solar cycles are in sync to cause super cooling

Greenland suffers -79F temperature before winter's start

Oregon has early snow reaching 25 inches

Colorado ski resorts get early start because of pre-winter snow storms

Chinese cotton prices soar due to cold temperatures

Korea hit with unusual cold and early icing

Britain has coldest temperatures in 17 years

Turkey has early snow, expects 4 to 10 degrees below normal this winter

N. American plains struck by blizzard and cold conditions

Germany's cold weather silences the media's global warming alarmist reporters

Scotland struck by early snow storms

United Kingdom faces a forecast of very harsh winters

Alaska experiences record cold temperatures

Arizona suffers from early freeze conditions

North Carolina ties record cold temperatures

Orlando, Florida breaks 31-year cold temperature record

Russia is forecasting worst winter in 1,000 years

Canadian cold weather reduces agriculture production

Appalachian mountains early snowfall largest since 1979

Melbourne, Australia has coldest October temperature in 15 years

Coca-Cola sales plunge due to cold weather

Note: Previous global cooling postings in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11 and Part 12.

Will Global Warming Cause Species Extinctions? Latest Peer-Reviewed Research Confirms Species Will Survive, Easily

Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and their computer models have predicted that global warming will cause multiple species to become extinct. Like all global warming predictions emanating from the IPCC Climategate science, this one also does not hold up to actual scientific scrutiny.

Scientists examined past significant global warming periods and discovered that the excessive and extended warmth of those periods did not cause species to die out.

"The first period they examined was the Eocene Climatic Optimum (53-51 million years ago), during which time the atmosphere's CO2 concentration exceeded 1200 ppm and tropical temperatures were 5-10°C warmer than modern values.....The second period they examined consisted of two rapid-change climatic events in the Holocene -- one at 14,700 years ago and one at 11,600 years ago -- during which times temperatures increased in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere by up to 10°C over periods of less than 60 years.....the authors note that "at no site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for large-scale climate-driven extinction during these intervals of rapid warming." On the other hand, they report that extinctions did occur due to the cold temperatures of the glacial epoch, when subtropical species in southern Europe were driven out of their comfort zone." [Willis, K.J., Bennett, K.D., Bhagwat, S.A. and Birks, H.J.B. 2010]

Additional peer-reviewed studies. Other species extinction postings.

NASA Global Warming Research: Last Decade of Data Shows Vast Areas of World Not Warming

Read here. Although the MSM does not publicize actual empirical climate evidence any longer, it is known by researchers that large areas of the world have been cooling over the last 10+ years, some considerably. NASA data confirms this with their global temperature map for the period of 2000-2009, which clearly indicates "global warming" is regional warming at best. (click on image to enlarge)

Definitive warming is indicated on NASA temperature map by the yellow, brown and red colors. Bluish areas represent either cooling or non-significant warming/cooling - these areas dominate, which means "global" warming is non-existent.

Additional modern temperature charts. Original PDF of NASA temperature map.

Obama's Post-Election Party: A CO2 Emissions Blowout By A Leftist "CO2-Fearing" Democrat

Read here and here. After this November's election, the nation's CO2-fearing commander-in-chief is traveling to India for some R&R. Below describes the logistics of Obama's travel "party." The CO2-global warming hypocrisy of the Democrats/left/liberals is mind-boggling.

• Air Force One
• Two Additional jumbo jets
• Additional security jets
• 45 cars
• 570 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel
• 125 rooms at the Taj President hotel
• 80 rooms at the Grand Hyatt
• 80 rooms at The Oberoi hotel
• 30 to 40 secret service agents

Taxpayer Billions Wasted As Computer Climate Models Erroneously Predict Future Global Drought

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.

#2. Climate models will never be successful at predicting global climate, for a multitude of reasons.

#3. Climate models perform their calculations using an inaccurate database of precipitation measurements.

#4. Climate models assume all climate relationships are linearly based and valid, which is 180 degrees opposite of reality.

#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.

Additional drought postings.

Paleo-Climate Experts Reject Mann's "Hockey Stick" Hypothesis, Embrace The McIntyre/McKitrick Results

Read here and here. As is well known by now, the IPCC, the MSM and Hollywood wildly (and foolishly) celebrated the "Hockey Stick" caricature of past temperatures when it was first introduced, which portrayed the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age as non-existent. Subsequent expert analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick found the hockey stick portrayal of past temperatures to be bogus and without scientific merit.

Recently, paleo-climate experts from around the world confirmed that the hockey stick caricature was dead by holding a major Medieval Warming Period (MWP) symposium in Lisbon, Portugal titled "The Medieval Warm Period - Where and when was it warm?". [Archived home web page here.]

Obviously, holding a MWP conference means there is no MWP "consensus" yet, and the IPCC Climategate-style of science is definitely not "settled." Additional confirmation of the MWP existence (pouring salt into Michael Mann's wound) is the symposium's prominent use of a graph from a peer-reviewed study that depicts MWP temperatures matching or exceeding modern warming temperatures. The symposium graph is an ensemble of paleo proxy reconstructions [Jansen et al., 2007]; and, by focusing solely on the ensemble's temperature ranges of the proxies, as depicted in the 'C3' chart below, the Jansen et al. research clearly is more supportive of, and similar to, the McIntyre & McKitrick results instead of the infamous hockey stick results. (click on image to enlarge)

This range of ensemble temperatures is also very similar to the results of multiple other peer-reviewed studies in the paleo-climate science field.

Peer-Reviewed Studies: Documenting The Evidence That Disproves The IPCC Global Warming Science

[Need a new source for peer-reviewed studies? Go here. Below is an explanation of what this post is about.]

About two years ago, 'C3 Headlines' was started as an effort to report on interesting reports and science regarding the non-CAGW view of climate change. Although it was not planned, we ended up reading many an article about specific peer-reviewed studies that disagreed with the IPCC global warming science claims, which often resulted in a C3 posting.

Over time and some 2,100 posts later, we got interested in how many peer-reviewed articles we actually referenced in our posts. We manually did a count, and to our amazement, we've referenced over 500 peer-reviewed studies that take issue with the IPCC science on climate change.

Unfortunately, conducting this count turned to be a ludicrously laborious exercise since we did not have the foresight to categorize those 'C3' postings as being based on a peer-reviewed study. So, while doing the count, we actually marked each of those 500+ older posts as peer-reviewed based.

Okay, what does all the above mean? For those bloggers or individuals seeking the original source of information regarding non-consensus global warming science, 'C3' has a new peer-reviewed category that lists all (past and future) C3 postings that reference peer-reviewed studies/research. Each posting has a link that will lead (directly or indirectly) the reader to the peer-reviewed study source. This new C3 category link can be found near the bottom of each C3 web page, where all category links are located.

New Major Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate Models' Predictions Found To Be Shitty

Read here. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, the IPCC/U.S./UK climate models are essentially worthless. This new peer-reviewed study [Anagnostopoulos et al.] confirms that sentiment, and documents that they are even worse than worthless (ie, shitty). Policymakers would be better off reading the Farmer's Almanac for weather/climate prognostications.

"It is claimed that GCMs [global circulation models] provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points,we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.....Simply put, the current suite of climate models were not developed to provide the level of accuracy required for adaptation-type analysis." [Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A. & Mamassis, N. (2010)]

An extra bonus from this study is its verifying that all 'C3' readers and skeptics, in general, are smarter than the vast majority of Yale elites.

The Best 2010 Essay On The Idiocy of Global Warming Alarmism & Liberal/Left Stupidity

Read here. Simply the best essay eviscerating the idiocy of the Left/Liberal fears of global warming. As most are familiar with, the Left will always turn to the pathetic tactic of putting an issue into the context of "what-will-happen-to-our-grandchildren" in order to win debating points and sway public opinion. As Willis Eschenbach points out in his essay, the empirical evidence does not support the manipulative "grandchildren" tactic, plus even if it does continue to warm, the "grandchildren" will do just fine.

"What would I do differently if I knew for a fact that my Grandchildren would be eight-tenths of a degree warmer in 2050? Or alternatively, how would I feel if I knew for a fact that I had sentenced my as-yet-unborn Grandchildren in 2050 to live in a world that was eight-tenths of a degree warmer?

And you know, I couldn’t think of one single thing about buildings, or businesses, or roads, or lives, that I’d do differently for eight tenths of a degree by 2050. Not one thing. Even if I knew it was coming, I don’t know what that slight warming will do, so what would I do to get my Grandchildren and Puppies and business and bridges ready for it? How would I know what to do to prepare my buildings and roads and life for eight tenths of a degree of warming?

There might be some adverse outcomes from that eight tenths of a degree of temperature rise threatening my grandchildren in 2050, but neither I nor anyone else knows what those outcomes might be. We’ll assuredly get an extra flood over here, and one less flood over there, it’s very likely to be drier somewhere and wetter somewhere else, in other words, the climate will do what climate has done since forever — change.

But anyone who says they can predict exactly where the floods and droughts might be in that unknown climate future is blowing smoke. And I don’t know if we could even tell if the average temperature changed by eight-tenths of a degree......

So my questions are … where are all of the catastrophes from that couple of degrees of warming since the Little Ice Age, and from the half century fast warming since 1958? I mean, James Hansen would excoriate the Elizabethans because they bequeathed not only their Grandchildren, but their great-great Grandchildren, a warmer world. I don’t know how the Elizabethans slept at night, after wishing a degree or more of warming on their poor innocent Grandchildren. And puppies. But where are the catastrophes from the couple of degrees of slow warming since the 1600s?

Seriously, people keep saying that the problem with the climate is that we can’t do laboratory experiments. But for the past three centuries we have two excellent natural experiments. In the first we saw warming century after century, and yet we didn’t experience Thermageddon. Where are the catastrophes?"

As they say, read the whole essay, it's excellent and provides strong support of why big government leftists/liberals should never be allowed to be near the reigns of power, at least for the sake of our future grandchildren.

You Don't Need A Climate Model To Predict The Stupidity of Liberal/Leftists: China Proves Green Energy Tech Will Endanger U.S.

Read here. We've written before about the huge Chinese risk that Democrats and climate alarmists were creating for the U.S economy. Pushing renewable energy solutions for electricity and transportation that rely on China as a major provider of rare element materials is pure Democrat/liberal/leftist/progressive stupidity. Energy innovation and new technology are great ideals, unless it creates an unhealthy dependency (addiction?) that is even more unstable than the foreign oil dependency the U.S. presently relies on.

IPCC Documents Major Flaws of Its Own Climate Models: Predictive Capabilities Are Non-Existent

Read here. We've long been critical of these complex, computer simulations. Now we see that the IPCC has documented the gross inadequacies of their virtual modeling, yet they keep publicizing the model output as realistic catastrophic scenarios.

And, adding misery to insult, there are the flim-flam academics pushing the climate model predictions as a religious gospel, totally misleading the gullible and naive flock (i.e., MSM journalists and Hollywood celebrities).

Besides the IPCC documented flaws, below is a listing of major climate model shortcomings. (click on image to enlarge)

"Carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth": Are NASA Climate Scientists Pathological Liars?

Read here, here, here, and here. If one reads the previous linked articles, one will find that multiple scientists are taking serious issue (on multiple levels) with the most recent NASA study done by its climate modeling scientists.

This NASA publication quotes the lead "scientist" as stating that "CO2 acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," and the NASA web page headline "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature" suggests the same. The use of the term "thermostat," in regards to the trace gas CO2, implies a specific, fine tuning capability, a CO2 tweaking mechanism so-to-speak that can be used to "control" the ups and downs of global temperatures. If this were true, the CO2 thermostat (changes in CO2 levels) would have an obvious correlation with global temperature changes. In fact, as the below chart reveals, there is almost a zero relationship between CO2 changes and temperature changes.

As the chart depicts, since the mid-1940's, every single year has the atmospheric CO2 level increasing. In contrast, the annual global temperature change has varied in a narrow band, usually between a -0.20 and 0.20 degree Celsius. (Note the red line, which is the 20-year average of annual temperature changes - it's basically flat.) When viewing the data in this manner, it becomes obvious that the NASA proclamation of CO2 being a "thermostat" is empirically absurd, if not fraudulent.

The scientists at NASA know this, yet they use the blatantly false analogy of a thermostat that "controls" Earth's temperature. Knowing that NASA climate scientists have previously been exposed misrepresenting climate science and temperatures (more here), is it fair to start asking the obvious question?: Have NASA climate scientists become pathological liars? Based on the scrutiny their work now receives, it would seem a lot of scientists are taking no chances with NASA's research.

Archived NASA web page. (click on images to enlarge)

If the above chart represents the short-term period of "thermostat" capabilities, does a longer-term perspective provide better support for NASA's "CO2 thermostat" is a Earth temperature "control" statement? Nope. Per the study of ice cores, the high resolution evidence found that CO2 changes lagged temperature changes by approximately 800 years, just the opposite of what NASA scientists are claiming. The ice core chart below is another indication of the NASA "thermostat" bogosity.

A Scottish Loch's Evidence Substantiates Two Significant Medieval Warming Intervals, Study Shows

Read here. Map source here. Numerous temperature reconstructions indicate that during the Medieval centuries, two distinct warming intervals happened. New research from a Scottish loch's sediment core analysis identified the two separate, extended warming periods between 900 and 1600AD.

In addition, the new peer-reviewed research clearly reveals the wide climate variation experienced prior to the large industrial CO2 emissions of the 20th century. The modern warming was found not to be unusual or out of the ordinary. (click on image to enlarge)

 

"“The Loch Sunart reconstruction for the late MCA suggests temperatures from AD 916 to 1035 were similar to those recorded over the late twentieth century.”..... Cage and Austin [Cage, A.G. and, W.E.N. Austin. 2010] point out “perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Loch Sunart temperature record is the short-lived event between AD 1540 and1600, which is characterized by a very abrupt warming transition at AD 1540. This period had an average temperature anomaly of 1.1ºC above the long-term mean, which is higher than most of the 20th century and the late MCA.”....."“The Loch Sunart temperature reconstruction exhibits a gradual cooling trend that continues from AD 1608 to 1941, with the coldest temperature anomalies (~0.75ºC) of this period occurring between the early 1930s and 1940s.” So in the last 400 years, the sea bottom of Loch Sunart cooled, the coldest period over the past 400 years occurred 70 years ago, and then the water warmed up to levels that were typical during the beginning of the 400-year period."

Additional climate history postings. Historical temperature charts.

Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate Model Predictions of African River Flows Proven To Be Incorrect

Read here. Global warming alarmist scientists speculate, as a result of climate models, that global warming will cause conditions resulting in African river flows decreasing. New research was completed to determine if the Breede River of South Africa responded in the manner speculated.

After correcting for the affect of human caused land-use changes within the watersheds, the new research found that river flows for the Breede River actually increased over the modern warming period, totally contrary to climate model predictions.

"However, Lloyd [Lloyd, P. 2010] was able to demonstrate that those results were driven primarily by unaccounted for land use changes  in the five catchments, and that in his newer study the one site that had "a pristine watershed" was the one that had the "14% increase in flow over the study period," which was "contrary to the climate change predictions" and indicative of the fact that "climate change models cannot yet account for local climate change effects." As a result, he concluded that "predictions of possible adverse local impacts from global climate change should therefore be treated with the greatest caution," and that, "above all, they must not form the basis for any policy decisions until such time as they can reproduce known climatic effects satisfactorily.""

Additional failed predictions by "experts."

IPCC Climate Models Ignore Major Cause of Sea Level Rise: Peer-Research Identifies Key Non-CO2 Factor

Read here and here. Although the recent sea level rise has been non-existent, the modern past, per the satellite estimates, has seen it rising about 3mm per year (about 12 inches per century). A new peer-reviewed study has determined that at least 25% of the past increase has been due to groundwater extraction, not CO2-induced warming. The IPCC climate models completely ignore this human-caused (groundwater extraction) component of sea level increases.

"Large-scale groundwater extraction for irrigation, drinking water or industry results in an annual rise in sea levels of approximately 0.8 mm, accounting for about one-quarter of total annual sea-level rise.....“We calculated it at eight-tenths of a millimetre per year. This is surprisingly large when compared to the current annual rise in sea levels, which the IPCC estimates at 3.1 mm.”..... Our study confirms that groundwater depletion is, in fact, a significant factor.”"

Y. Wada, L.P.H. van Beek, C.M. van Kempen, J.W.T.M. Reckman, S. Vasak, and M.F.P. Bierkens (2010)

Additional sea level postings.

Peer-Reviewed Research Reveals That Climate Models Fail To Correctly Simulate Amazon Rainy Season

Read here. There is a major climate pattern, often referred to as the South American Monsoon System (SAMS), that brings the annual rainy season to portions of S. America, including the Amazon area. Scientists (Bombardi, R.J. and Carvalho) analyzed the output of IPCC global climate models and discovered that not only did they fail to accurately forecast/predict the actual precipitation levels, they also failed at predicting the start and end points of the monsoon season.

"Bombardi and Carvalho report that over northern South America the annual precipitation cycle "is poorly represented by most models," and, more specifically, that "most models tend to underestimate precipitation during the peak of the rainy season." In addition, they say that "the misrepresentation of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and its seasonal cycle seems to be one of the main reasons for the unrealistic out-of-phase annual cycles simulated near the equator by many GCMs," and that "poor representation of the total monsoonal precipitation over the Amazon and northeast Brazil is observed in a large majority of the models. As a consequence, therefore, they note that "simulations of the total seasonal precipitation, onset and end of the rainy season diverge among models and are notoriously unrealistic over [the] north and northwest Amazon for most models."

Additional climate model failures.

Russian Arctic Experts: The Arctic Has Entered Cooling Cycle & Climate Models Are Worthless

Read here. Utilizing 85 years of actual scientific data and analysis, scientists from the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) published a book, Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas, that explains how the Arctic temperature and sea ice conditions are driven by natural forces, not human CO2 emissions. The authors also mock the CO2-based climate models that the IPCC Climategate scientists solely rely on:

• "They state “where data do exist, we should prefer data to computer models”; they believe model projections of future ice area fluctuations are unreliable. Actually, they have some deliciously scathing remarks about climate models.

    “The models neglect natural fluctuations because they have no means of incorporating them, and put the entire blame for climate changes since the 19th century on human activity.”"

Additional climate model articles

Scientists Determine That China's Roman & Medieval Temperatures Significantly Warmer Than Present

Read here and here. Map source here. A peer-reviewed study utilizing high resolution data from a peat bog sediment core, analyzes 6,000 years worth of a temperature proxy. The researchers determined that both Roman and Medieval Periods experienced temperatures that were significantly higher than those of the current period. (click on image to enalrge)

 

"Working with cores extracted from a peat bog west of Jinchuan, China the authors developed "a 6000-year high-resolution δ18O record of peat plant cellulose," which they interpret as "reflecting changes in regional surface air temperature." And from their results, which are depicted in the figure [adjacent], it can be seen that the Medieval Warm Period (which was preceded by the Dark Ages Cold Period and followed by the Little Ice Age) was considerably warmer than the Current Warm Period (which followed the Little Ice Age) has been to date"

Additional climate history postings. Historical temperature charts.

NASA Funded Peer-Research: Global Warming Has Not Caused A Hurricane or Cyclone Increase

Read here. The studies and evidence keeps piling up. The recent global warming has not caused an increase in severe weather, including tropical cyclones. The IPCC climate models, and associated climate alarmist scientists, have been wrong regarding predictions of greater severe weather activity, as this newest study confirms. (click on image to enlarge)

"“The impact of the rising sea surface temperature (SST) on tropical cyclone (TC) activity is one of the great societal and scientific concerns. With the observed warming of the tropics of around 0.5°C over the past 4 to 5 decades, detecting the observed change in the TC activity may shed light on the impact of the global warming on TC activity".....there is clearly no trend whatsoever in global tropical cyclone activity. In their own words, we learn “Note also that the global storm days do not show any trend over the past 44 years.”.....They further note that the western North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere ocean tropical cyclone “activities, which dominate the global TC activity, have no trend.” They find that the number of storm days is related to global teleconnections, particularly El Niño—Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and not to the overall state of global temperatures. They state that “variability of the global total storm days is primarily driven by the ENSO and PDO.....The authors report that the research was supported financially by NASA, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ocean University of China, and the Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program."

Other severe weather postings. Other failed prediction postings.

Polar Ice Melt: Over 90% of Melt Due To Soot, Not CO2, According To Peer-Reviewed Study

Read here. Hysterical global warming alarmists keep claiming that polar sea ice melt is due to increasing human CO2 emissions. This is extreme wishful thinking on their part since recent research finds black soot as being the major factor for polar sea ice loss. h/t: Steve Goddard

"Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land.....But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming....."A surprisingly large temperature response is caused by a surprisingly small amount of impurities in snow in polar regions."....."When soot is there it heats the snow. It acts like a little toaster oven."....."Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Zender says. "The climate is more responsive to this than [to] anything else we know.""

Why IPCC/NASA Climate Models Don't Work: They Totally Flunk The Critical Stephen Hawking Test

Read here. Per Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, an attribute test of "good" models...

"A model is a good model if it:
       1. Is elegant
       2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
       3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
       4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Thus, Roger Pielke Sr., prominent climate scientist concludes the obvious:

"With respect to the multi-decadal global climate models, it is clear they fail these requirements to be a “good model”."

As just about every sentinent being has now come to realize, the global climate models are absolute failures as tools for climate prediction/forecasting. It doesn't matter if the models are used for short-term predictions, or for the long-term, 100 year scenario-forecasts, the climate models are designed to fail. And no matter how much faster computers become, or how much greater the granularity of information achieved, the climate models will always fail since they don't meet the fundamental 'Hawking' requirements to be "good" models - it's not in their genes, so-to-speak.

As a result of this failure design and failure in accurate results, policymakers should find the following, necessary strategic decision to be one of relative ease: Instead of continuing to pour scarce resources into these massive model failures, the billions of funding to support climate models should be re-allocated to more important endeavors throughout the scientific research world, including those climate research projects that are more worthy.

Additional climate model postings.

Big Green, Big Govt, Big Lobbying, Big Lies & Big Dollars: The Corruption of Democrats By Environmental Organizations

Interesting video (three-part) synopisis of how the Democrats have been green-corrupted by the base desire of power and money. Certainly after viewing one can appreciate why the 'crook & liar' alarmist scientists are so valued by Democrats.

A clear reminder that Leftists/liberals/progressives cannot be trusted with the reins of government as their goals are anti-property, anti-prosperity and anti-liberty, which enhances their own wealth and economic control. A PJTV production. Update: Did we say corrupt?

xxx xxx

French Data Confirms 1,500 Year Climate Cycle: Global Cooling/Warming Phases Natural, Not Man-Made

Read here. Map source here. Another peer-reviewed study provides high resolution evidence that the world's climate is impacted by an oscillation that occurs approximately every 1,500 years. This oscillation produces rapid climate change, which most likely explains the global warming rebound experienced since the Little Ice Age.

"On the southern coast of the English Channel, Billeaud et al. (2009) studied offshore-derived sediments in the macrotidal setting of Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, France, where they conducted a high-resolution sequence stratigraphy analysis of the intertidal to subtidal wedge, utilizing juvenile shells, peat and organic-rich bulk sediment.....The work revealed that "rapid climate changes, with ~1500-year periodicity, are recorded in the sedimentary successions.....Such results add to the overwhelming evidence provided by other paleoclimate records that have shown, in their words, that "Holocene climate was punctuated by widespread cooling events, recurring every ~1500 ± 500 years (Bond et al., 1997; Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Broecker, 2000; Mayewski et al., 2004; Debret et al., 2007; Allen et al., 2007)."...And since this periodicity suggests that the world was fully ripe for a recovery from the last of these coolings (i.e., the Little Ice Age), 20th-century global warming is seen to be neither unusual, unnatural nor unprecedented..."

Additional climate history postings. Historical temperature charts.

More Bad News For IPCC Climate Models: Peer-Reviewed Study Indicates Only 60% of Warming Due To CO2

Read here. Fortunately for the world, the IPCC and Climategate science alarmists have relied exclusively on climate models based on the concept that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The newest peer-reviewed study finds that hypothesis to be wrong. At most, CO2 greenhouse gases might be only 60% of global warming, per this latest research. [Ed: The original ResilientEarth scientist-author reviewed his own intepretation of this new study and determined that the more accurate figure is '60%', not '35%'. We changed this post's title to reflect his correction.]

As peer-reviewed research keeps discovering, we witness the impact of human CO2 on warming being methodically reduced. And, as the science improves, other major climate forcings are being identified as significant contributors to recent modern warming, which are yet to be incorporated into IPCC climate models.

Sooo, instead of the world wasting trillions of economic activity on the fading, false fear of climate calamities due to human CO2, the world can instead invest in policies promoting delivery of electricity to those billions without, plus raise billions from the scourge of poverty. Although vast amounts of dollars have been wasted on incorrect climate science and climate models, the good news is that monies proposed for the "Cold War" on CO2 can be re-directed to productive outcomes.

"So great is the uncertainty that the IPCC's future climate predictions, which are all based on biased assumptions about climate sensitivity, are most certainly untrustworthy. As stated in the article: "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.".....Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clear—CO2  does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide."

Previous climate model postings.

Does Kentucky Democrat Running For Senate Endorse Global Warming "Science" & Skeptic-Hate?

The Democrat candidate for Kentucky's U.S. Senate seat firmly stated he wasn't a global warming "denier." His response indicates he supports the Climategate/IPCC global warming science that has fallen in such disrepute over the last 12 months. It would be of interest if his financial supporters include those fanatical environmentalists who call skeptics "deniers" and advocate violence towards those who disagree, which would likely be most Kentucky voters. h/t: Tom Nelson

xxxxx

And, it would be of interest if Jack Conway, the Democratic candidate, is even aware that Kentucky has been experiencing global cooling since the last super El Nino of 1998 - to the tune of a minus 9.0 degress per century rate. If so, why is he denigrating global warming skeptics when the empirical scientific evidence supports their position? (click on images to enlarge)

Finally, has anyone asked Jack Conway what the impact on world temperatures would be if Kentucky and all other states were forced to comply with proposed EPA CO2 regulations? Does he know that even the EPA admits that the temperature impact would be less than 3/10th's of a degree and would cost taxpayers 100's of billions of dollars? Is he a "denier" of climate and economic reality?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Idiocy of Michael Mann's Defenders, Pt 2: Michael Mann, Idiot Defender #1

Read here. (Part #1 here.) Every time the Climategate and Hockey-Stick fiascoes start to fade, there pops-up Michael Mann to throw more fuel on the smoldering fire that surrounds him and his work. The man exhibits both the idiocy and cluelessness of a moth seeking the flame (self-immolation?).

His most recent effort at fire-spreading was an opinion piece in the Washington Post, the MSM's print version of The View, which only the shallow mindset of a liberal/Democrat could embrace. Despite his protestations, the entire controversy that has engulfed Mann, his science, and his associates could easily be ended by his simply following honored scientific tradition and transparency by releasing all his data, notes, correspondence and methodologies. This is the standard operating procedure for all science and scientists, including the best and brightest, like say, for example, Albert Einstien. If it's good for Albert, why does Mann hide and protest from doing the same?

Of course, Michael Mann refuses to do the same as Einstein, and the vast majority of past and present scientists for a very important reason. This non-acceptable, non-professional behavior most likely means that Mann fears being exposed as a serial liar about his climate science, which most now fully realize:

"And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right."

....."My friend, the problem is not blatant abuse from politicians. The problem is your blatant abuse of the scientific method. If you and other climate scientists stopped trying to scare us with your doomsday fantasies, if you and other climate scientists were honest and open and forthright about what we do understand and what we don’t understand, if you and other climate scientists fully disclosed your data and your methods, if you and other climate scientists stopped trying to subvert the IPCC into serving as your propaganda mouthpiece, we could have a rational discussion."

"But you are like a junkie who jumps up and down and screams “Police abuse” every time the cops question him. Asking you scientific questions is not abuse, Dr. Mann, no matter how many times you try to claim it is. And your investigations are the just rewards of your own anti-scientific and unethical actions. As my momma used to say, “Scorch around, and you’ll get burnt.”

The Idiocy of Michael Mann's Defenders: Their Destruction of Rational & Objective Analysis Continues

Read here and here. (Part #2 is here.) If you'd like classic examples of how the Left/liberals/progressives/Democrats naturally turn to character assassination and conspiracy theories when they've lost the intellectual argument, read the two linked posts. Obviously, they trash all rational and objective analysis by turning to the darkside, as the non-scientific means to a desired social end.

The Left's idiocy and meanness on display is no longer an abstract concept as their natural persona is now well documented, globally. Unfortunately, it is this darkside mentality of the Left that is in the process of erdoing the public's trust and credibility in science, and scientists.

BTW, for a list of all the progressive/liberal misrepresentations of climate science, go here.

Climate Model Failure: Oceans' Warming From Earth's Magma Discounted In Climate Models

Read here. The failures of the IPCC's climate models are wide and deep. While the models focus on the atmosphere warming the oceans via human CO2 emissions, at the bottom of the seas geological activity is taking place, for the most part unseen, spewing heat and gases into the water undetected.

Unfortunately, climate models do not include the reality of massive crustal, seabed activity, and as a result, this lack of model inclusion contributes to the continuous model incapablity of predicting future climate scenarios with any degree of accuracy.

"Scientists from the MARUM Center for Marine Environmental Sciences and the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen on board the German research vessel Meteor have discovered a new hydrothermal vent 500 kilometres south-west of the Azores. The vent with chimneys as high as one meter and fluids with temperatures up to 300 degrees Celsius was found at one thousand metres water depth in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The discovery of the new deep-sea vent is remarkable because the area in which it was found has been intensively studied during previous research cruises.....“Our results indicate that many more of these small active sites exist along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge than previously assumed,” said Dr. Nicole Dubilier, the chief scientist of the expedition. “This could change our understanding of the contribution of hydrothermal activity to the thermal budget of the oceans."

Peer Research From China: IPCC's Alarmist Claim of Global Decline of Snowpack Levels Found To Be Wrong

Read here. The IPCC and other global warming alarmists have claimed that snowpacks of mountainous areas are declining. Actual scientists decided to investigate this claim to determine if it was based on factual evidence or based on hypothetical speculation.

Per peer-reviewed research conducted by Chinese scientists, they analyzed an area of Tibet and discovered that snowpack levels over the past 100 years reveal no significant trends and the levels are quite variable. The most recent levels indicate snowpack is well above previous lows of earlier decades of the 20th century. Another IPCC prediction proven wrong. (click on image to enlarge)

 

"“The most notable features of the reconstruction are the higher snow accumulation around 1990. The reconstruction also shows that the Gongga Mountain experienced some lower snow-depth episodes during 1910s, 1930s, 1950–1980, and later 1990s. The higher snow-depth intervals occurred during 1910s, 1940s, and the period around 1990 with the highest values during past 100 years. We defined extreme snowpack depth years as those years with values more than one standard deviation (plus or minus) from the average. Although there are several clusters of extreme years over the past century, the century is notable for the long period of snow-depth variations in a normal way except the higher snowpack depth values around 1990.”.....So, what we get here is a classic case of an apparent decline in snowpack from the late-1980s to the near-present, and someone might be tempted to suggest the decline is related to global warming. The Chinese scientists figured a way to reconstruct snowpack going back over 100 years, and that time series shows no evidence whatsoever of any downward trend (in fact, there appears to be a slight upward trend in the data)."

Climate Model Failure: New Research Pointing To An Earthquake & El Niño Connection, Which Models Ignore

Read here. Climate models are unable to predict the ENSO climate pattern (El Niño and La Niña) with any degree of accuracy, which makes them entirely worthless for projecting future climate conditions. Why?

New peer-reviewed research is now pointing to a relationship between seismic activity (earthquakes and volcanoes, especially the under water variety) and ENSO events. It is postulated that the energy released by these crustal activities are inducing ENSO responses. If true, climate models will continue to fail their purpose until the seismic activity is incoporated into the models as a climate forcing/influence.

"O. Molchanov of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of the Physics of the Earth makes a case for the hypothesis that, at least partially, global climate changes and corresponding activity indices such as the ENSO phenomenon are induced by similar variations in seismicity.".....it was determined, first of all, that (1) the "climate indices show expected ENSO variation," and "amazingly," as Molchanov describes it, that (2) the earthquake indices demonstrate "similar quasi-ENSO variations." So the next questions were obviously: (1) which is the action? ... and (2) which is the reaction? From a number of other factors considered by the Russian researcher, he concludes that it is "more probable" that earthquake activity is "forcing the ENSO variation in the climate" than vice versa."

First It Was Global Warming Alarmists Becoming Unhinged, And Now It's Climate Models Unraveling

Last week we were exposed to the unhinged, malevolent Left/liberal/progressive environmental movement with the release of the 'Greenterror' video (short version). And now this week, two new peer-reviewed studies wreak havoc on existing IPCC climate models' credibility. The catastrophic global warming camp is seriously having a bad week, bad month, bad quarter and bad fiscal year, no?

One of the studies purports to show that increasing solar activity cools the Earth. This would be a 180 degree turn from consensus science, and if true, would mean that all past projections of IPCC climate models can be flushed with the rest of the human waste.

"If new satellite data can be trusted, changes in solar activity warmed the Earth when they should have cooled it...studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline. The sun puts out less energy when its activity is low, but different types of radiation vary to different degrees. Until now, this had been poorly studied...Haigh's measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted."

The other study found that the Earth's tropic zones were being affected by global warming more than the polar regions, which is the exact opposite of the infamous IPCC "consensus" science and climate model output.

"Scientists...took almost 500 million temperature readings from over 3,000 locations around the world maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center. They tracked temperature changes between 1961 and 2009...These measurements were then correlated with metabolic changes in cold-blooded animals such as frogs, snakes and fish, which do not use their metabolism to regulate their body temperature..."The expectation was that physiological changes would also be greatest in the north temperate-Arctic region, but when we ran the numbers that expectation was flipped on its head,"."

In summary, the Left-Green violent activists should really take a chill pill because neither the climate scientists, nor the climate models, have a clue as to what is really happening to the world's climate.These latest studies affirm the growing recogniton that climate models do not reflect reality and are entirely worthless as climate prediction/forecast tools.

There is one outcome from these studies that is certainly assured, though: send more money! In reality, the purpose of all peer-reviewed studies is to manufacture a reason why more climate research funds are needed for the given author's work.

U.S. Cooling Continues At -8.3F/Century Rate: IPCC/NASA's Climate Model Warming Predictions Still Wrong

Source here.  The 12-month period ending September 2010 was the 2nd coldest September-ending period since 1998. Of course, this U.S. cooling trend will eventually revert to a warming trend, but the current decade-long plus global cooling trend has not yet abated. This has been a major surprise for all global warming alarmists. This trend has persisted since the super 1997-98 El Niño event.

With the continental U.S. having the most extensive thermometer network in the world, this suggests that possibly other areas of the world would be reporting a cooling trend if they also had the extent and quality of actual temperature measuring coverage that exists in the U.S.

The AGW hypothesis calls for global warming, which is obviously not happening in the U.S. - the case for AGW is significantly weakened by this type of empirical evidence. Just as a reminder, the climate models predicted "global" warming, not partial-global warming, as seems to be the present situation. 

Each red line (link) on graph represents a 12-month period ending in September of related year - continental U.S. temperatures only.

Note: A temperature trend, as shown in the above chart, is not a prediction.

Additional current temp charts here. Historical temp charts here.

Why Climate Scientist Michael Mann Should Be Forced To Have His Day In Court - A Clear, Rational Explanation

Read here. Michael Mann is suspected of defrauding taxpayers due to his work in climate science. Science fraud is not unusual, yet Michael Mann refuses to cooperate with various individuals and organizations seeking information about his taxpayer funded scientific work that could actually exonerate him. Michael Mann seeks to be placed above the law, namely the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA is designed to establish essential expectations of transparency of the government funded bureaucracy and its minions, which categorically applies to both the University of Virginia and Michael Mann. Both UofV and Mann have refused to comply with the FOIA thus putting themselves in harm's way of the law.

Scientists and universities are not immune, nor above any law, as are the crooks in Congress and the plethora of corrupt UN diplomats - thank goodness. Misconduct and/or fraud in science needs to be identified and stopped legally, especially when institutions of higher learning and the scientific governing associations fail continuously to protect the public from these science transgressions.

"Whether it is the special immunities and privileges the MainStream Media (MSM) seek to deny ordinary citizen journalists or the climate data and information climate scientists attempt to deny ordinary citizen observers of climate science, you don’t have to be a Republican, a political conservative, or a right-wing-nut, to join with our political opponents in demanding non-discriminatory application of the due process of law to scientists the same as other citizens and professions."

Prestigious Chicago Museum Caught Promoting Hysteria Re: Rising Sea Levels, Contrary To The Known Science

Read here. The well-known Chicago Field Museum of Natural History has an exhibit a display depicting Manhattan under 16 feet of water due to the supposed "runaway" global warming, which has never occurred. This museum, once world famous its for scientific research, education and displays, has now chosen to ignore the actual empirical evidence and science about sea levels. Their Manhattan display actually has no factual basis.

Multiple peer-reviewed studies in recent years have examined the actual data and have all developed similar conclusions: that current sea levels are not appreciably increasing, in total contrast to virtual climate model projections and hysterical alarmists.

"It takes about 37.4 gigatons of ice loss to raise the global sea level 0.1 millimeter—four hundredths of an inch. In other words, ice loss from Greenland is currently contributing just over one-fourth of a millimeter of sea level rise per year, or one one-hundreth of an inch.  Antarctica’s contribution is just under  one-fourth of a millimeter per year.  So together, these two regions—which contain 99% of all the land ice on earth—are losing ice at a rate which leads to an annual sea level rise of one half of one millimeter per year. This is equivalent to a bit less than 2 hundredths of an inch per year.  If this continues for the next 90 years, the total sea level rise contributed by Greenland and Antarctica by the year 2100 will amount to less than 2 inches... Couple this with maybe 6-8 inches from the fact that the ocean rises with increasing temperature,  temperatures and 2-3 inches from melting of other land-based ice, and you get a sum total of about one foot of additional rise by century’s end...This is about 1/3rd of the 1 meter estimates and 1/20th of the 6 meter estimates." [Ed. Note: And certainly not the bogus 16 feet the Field Museum is shamelessly promoting in order to attract visitors - it would seem the huckster museum beleives there are suckers to be had.]"

A multitude of other sea level postings. h/t: Tom Nelson

Democrats & Computer Models Claim Texas Is Warming: Real Data Has Texas Cooling Last 15 Years, -2.7°F/Century Trend

Read here. Here is the recent headline from USA Today: "Expert: Texas is getting hotter due to global warming".

What are the real Texas temperature facts, though? As the NOAA temperature graphs for Texas reveal (the below graphs represent temperatures through August 2010), over the last 100 plus years Texas temperatures exhibit a cooling trend equal to a minus 0.10 degree Fahrenheit per century. For the second graph below, the temperature trend for the last 15 years is a minus 2.7 (-2.7) degrees Fahrenheit per century. What about the warmest decade "evaaar!", ending on December 31, 2009, you may ask? Welllllll.....Texas temperatures declined during that time span declined at a minus 7.3 (-7.3) degrees per century rate.

Okay, why does the USA Today headline say otherwise? Unfortunately, the climate scientists the "objective" reporters quote base their Texas "temperatures" on the fictional, speculative, computer climate model predictions, not the actual Texas temperatures. The scientists use their virtual "climate porn" temperatures to assure they can maintain their funding (research grants, taxpayer subsidies, green organization endowments, etc.), or increase funding, in the name of global warming research. If the scientists actually spoke the truth about Texas temperatures, their source of funding may shrink or entirely disappear.

Why doesn't the mainstream press, like USA Today, report the actual Texas temperatures correctly instead of bogus alarmist climate model predictions? The press, unfortunately, is not interested any longer in the truth and objective reporting. Instead, the MSM eagerly supports the big government agenda that climate alarmist scientists are advocating for, and thus slants the reporting to push the agenda.

The MSM press wants Democrats/progressives/liberals elected so that more regulations and taxes can be imposed on the traditional energy sector (Big Oil & Big Coal). The MSM has decided that the only way to assure Democrat victories is literally to spread bogus temperature information from the Left/liberal climate-porn scientists in order to scare the voters. It's really as simple as that. 

Moral of this story? Don't trust the MSM press regarding any climate change issue, and don't trust any big government funded scientist about global warming. And for goodness sakes, don't believe any output from climate models - they're a global joke. (click on images to enlarge)

 

Other modern temperature charts. Historical temperature graphs.

h/t: Tom Nelson  

Update: I see where Steve Goddard has also taken issue with the bogosity of Texas temperatures used by the USA Today article. He uses the same official NOAA temp database but uses different time periods to look at Texas temps.

Glacier Retreat Data Proves Antarctica Had Significant Climate Change During Medieval Warming

Read here. Peer-reviewed research documents the glacier retreat that happened during the Medieval Warming period for the Antarctica peninsula area. Despite Climategate scientists and alarmists claims, this evidence confirms that Antarctica (and the Southern Hemisphere) experienced the climate change of the Medieval era.

"Hall et al. examined organic-rich sediments exposed by recent retreat of the Marr Ice Piedmont on western Anvers Island, where glaciers have been undergoing considerable retreat in response to the well-documented warming of the Antarctic Peninsula..... This work revealed, in their words, that "peat from the overrun sediments dates between 707 ± 36 and 967 ± 47 cal. yr B.P.," which led them to conclude that "ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P," which they interpret as implying that "the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented," which means that this period was at least as warm as, or likely even warmer than, the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period."

Ethanol Boondoggle Continues: Billions of Big Govt Subsidies To Ethanol, and Oil Imports Still Grow

Read here. The brilliance of big government politicians is always soooo stunning. Big corn business interests tell politicians that ethanol will cut oil imports substantially. Politicians believe the corporate types and the sleazy renewable energy investors (i.e., Gore, Soros, etc.), and thus give $7 billion per year in subsidies to these corn-geeks. Now after 10 years of this idiocy, corn ethanol production has increased dramatically but oil imports has increased even more - that's right, U.S. oil imports increased, despite the claims of the ethanol rip-off lobby.

And now the politicians and big government EPA bureaucrats want to subsidize the big corn investors even more by mandating the all U.S. gas have at least 15% ethanol, which will automatically decrease a vehicle's miles per gallon efficiency. Simply amazing.

It's time to escort the existing ruling class in Washington out the door this November.

"In the next few weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to rule on a proposal to increase from 10 percent to 15 percent the amount of ethanol that may be blended into gasoline.....Since the 1970s, Congress has justified subsidies[1] to the corn ethanol industry with the oft-repeated claim that boosting domestic production of ethanol will increase America's energy security by reducing U.S. oil imports.....Between 1999 and 2009, U.S. ethanol production increased seven-fold, to more than 700,000 barrels per day (bbl/d). During that period, however, oil imports increased by more than 800,000 bbl/d.

• Tax subsidies provided to corn ethanol producers have been larger than those given to producers of any other form of renewable energy.[5]
• Corn ethanol subsidies are now costing U.S. taxpayers about $7 billion per year, the Congressional Budget Office reported in July.[6] The CBO found that producing enough corn ethanol to match the energy contained in a single gallon of conventional gasoline costs taxpayers $1.78.[7]
• Corn ethanol is a financially inefficient method of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, costing taxpayers $754 per metric ton of CO2 avoided, the Congressional Budget Office also reported."

h/t: Tom Nelson

Hollywood "Scientist" Who Predicted A Large Scale Y2K Disaster, Now Pushes AGW Catastrophic "Science" & Violence

Read here. Hollywood bimbo, Gillian Anderson, is not just your typical celebrity bimbo. She truly appears to be that rare combination of always being incredibly gullible and stupid at the same time. It's one thing to push the faux CO2-calamity science, but it's an amazing jump towards stupidity to participate in video productions advocating death for non-AGW believers.

In the famous X-Files TV series, Gillian portrayed a FBI scientist whose primary objective was to debunk non-scientific speculation, and to protect the public from violence. In reality, she's just the opposite - a hysterical alarmist, violent-prone bimbo. 

What if the X-Files scientist 'Scully' actually read peer-reviewed studies about the climate, and then reviewed temperature data from the past and present? If she did, 'what would Scully do'? Go hysterical FBI-bimbo on us? I don't think so.

Climate Models Fail Spectacularly At Simulating Clouds' Impact, Peer Reviewed Study Finds

Read here. Clouds are critical in determining Earth's radiation balance. In order for climate models to accurately project future climate conditions, they absolutely must be able to simulate correctly the many facets of clouds interaction with radiation, both reflection and absorption. The newest peer-reviewed research finds that climate models fail miserably at cloud simulation, which may explain why climate model output ranges from bad to worthless.

"...authors Zhang et al. (2010) note that the different representations of clouds and their feedback processes in Global Climate Models (GCMs) have been identified as major sources of differences in model climate sensitivities, stating that "contemporary GCMs cannot resolve clouds and highly simplified parameterizations are used to represent the interactions between clouds and radiation.".....And what was particularly striking, in the words of Zhang et al., was "the model overestimate of the occurrence frequency of deep convection and the complete absence of cirrus anvils," plus the fact that "the modeled clouds are too reflective in all regimes.".....Since incoming and outgoing radiation are strongly affected by the 3D spatial pattern of clouds of various types, a model that gets the "right" current global temperature with the wrong pattern of clouds must have errors in its radiation and/or heat transfer parameterizations.....results of this study thus suggest that climate modelers' claims of physical realism in their models are not supported by detailed comparisons with the real world..."

Italian Alps Cave Provides 17,000 Year Temperature Record: Researchers Confirm Temps Go Up & Down, Naturally

Read here. Map source here. For eons, Earth's climate and temperatures have changed in a cyclical pattern. In a peer-reviewed study, researchers analyzed a cave speleothem that produced a 17,000 year temperature record. The results clearly show that the climate changes naturally, and significantly, while atmospheric CO2 levels remained at levels well below current levels. They also confirmed that Roman and Medieval period temperatures equaled or exceeded modern temperatures.

"Working with stalagmite SV1 from Grotta Savi -- a cave located at the southeast margin of the European Alps in Italy.....This work revealed -- among several other things -- the occurrence of the Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period.....the five researchers say they were "characterized by temperatures that were similar to the present," while with respect to the Roman Warm Period, they say its "temperatures were similar to those of today or even slightly warmer.....we have here yet another example of the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has characterized the earth throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike; and we note that it provides three good examples of times when temperatures were equally as warm as they are presently, or even warmer, in spite of the fact that the air's CO2 content was much lower at those earlier times than it is today."

The Greenpeace & NRDC Utopian Version of 10:10 Video Release?

h/t: JoNova

Disastrous, Severe Weather Events On Decline Since "Unprecedented" Warming of 1990's & 2000's

Read here. Steve Goddard listed the 25 worst disasters, and they all occurred prior to the 1980's and prior to CO2 levels being above the "disastrous," end-of-the-world 350 ppm point.

Using the same source as Steve, below are two bar graphs depicting the 100 worst disasters for the 20th century. As the charts reveal, there was only a single 1990's severe weather related event (a non-earthquake, non-volcano, non-epidemic ) that managed to make it in the top 100. This indicates (despite the continuous, hysterical alarmist claims) that high levels of CO2 and "unprecedented" global warming appear to be unrelated to severe weather events.

So, the next time you read or hear that a bureaucrat/scientist, or a celebrity, or a reporter, or a politician claim that severe weather events are more deadly and more frequent, you'll know you are witnessing a flat-out, agenda driven liar.

For more postings about severe weather data and research, go here. If you prefer, SPPI has consolidated multiple 'C3' severe weather postings in a single PDF, which can be downloaded from here. (click on images to enlarge)

So far, during the 21st century, two severe weather events would have a fatality count that would exceed the smallest of the top 100 20th century disasters. Neither the 2003 European heatwave, nor the 2008 Myanmar cyclone though, would have made the top 25 list of 20th century disasters. [Note: 2010 Pakistan floods and Russian heatwave would not have made either list.]

Special note: Approximately 20,000 lives were lost during the 2003 European heatwave. From Wikipedia, here are top reasons given why so many of France's citizens perished: 

1. "Because of the usually relatively mild summers, most people did not know how to react to very high temperatures"
2. "most single-family homes and residential facilities built in the last 50 years were not equipped with air conditioning"
3. "Furthermore, while there were contingency plans for a variety of natural and man-made catastrophes, high temperatures had never been considered a major hazard"
4. "The heat wave occurred in August, a month in which many people, including government ministers and physicians, are on holiday (Many bodies were not claimed for many weeks because relatives were on holiday)"
5. "The administration of President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin laid the blame on families who had left their elderly behind without caring for them"
6. "the 35-hour workweek, which affected the amount of time doctors could work and family practitioners vacationing in August"
7. "Many companies traditionally closed in August, so people had no choice about when to vacation"
8. "Family doctors were still in the habit of vacationing at the same time"
9. "Many blamed Health Minister Jean-François Mattei for failing to return from his vacation when the heat wave became serious, and his aides for blocking emergency measures in public hospitals (such as the recalling of physicians)"
10. "blamed the Raffarin administration for ignoring warnings from health and emergency professionals and trying to minimize the crisis."

Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Peet Bogs Are A Climate Negative Feedback, Not Positive, As Gore Claimed

Read here. That great Nobel thinker, CO2-spewing, money-grubbing, sex-crazed poodle of a politician, Al Gore, claimed in U.S. Senate testimony that global warming caused peetlands to release more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, which is a "positive" feedback causing additional warming. Is the Gore-science prediction correct?

As usual, the answer is a definitive 'Nope.' In a new peer-reviewed study by Chinese researchers, it was found that peetlands provided a negative feedback mechanism as temperatures warmed. Now, who are going to believe? A selfish, self-centered, prima donna, Democrat political hack or real, peer-reviewed scientists?

"The authors write that peatland ecosystems "play a key role in the global carbon cycle and are influenced by global climate change," within which context the world's climate alarmists say the ongoing warming of the planet will lead to great releases of previously-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and methane, which will greatly exacerbate global warming.....In describing their findings, the four researchers report that "obvious increasing trends in RERCA [recent rate of carbon accumulation (RERCA)] were observed in all peat cores,".....they say that the temporal increase in RERCA in the upper regions of the cores -- which likely corresponded to the warmest segment of their two-century study period -- "changed to a much greater extent in recent decades than in the earlier period of peat formation.".....this most recent study out of China indicates that the world's climate alarmists have got things one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with reality in terms of the influence of earth's peatlands on the planet's temperature. These land types provide a negative feedback to global warming, whereby when they warm, they extract more -- not less -- CO2 from the atmosphere, applying a brake on rising temperatures..."