C3

Phil Jones? "Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models"

Read here and here. Well..okay...the quote in this post's title is what Phil Jones should have really said (he didn't). Instead, he recently proclaimed that global warming finally has become "statistically significant" since 1995.

Jones was speaking of the 15 years starting in 1996 and ending in 2010. Although the warming has become "statistically significant" in his opinion (not others), the actual level of warming is literally immaterial when put into the context of catastrophic warming (from 5 to 10 degrees Celsius by 2100) pushed by government payroll scientists enthralled (enriched?) with alarmism.

To better understand the level of immaterial warming that has happened, look at the chart above (adjacent). The red curve is a plot of monthly HadCRUT anomalies for the 15 years (180 months) ending May 2011. The light blue curve is a 2nd order curve fit of the anomalies. The black dots represent monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and gray curve the 2nd order fitting to those CO2 levels. (charts and stats done in Excel)

First, note how the blue curve turns south, indicating a direction of cooling for the HadCRUT global temps that many scientists believe will continue. The straight linear trend associated with the latest 15 years implies a warming of a tiny +0.53 degrees by January 1, 2100. In contrast, the 15-year period ending May,1996 had a linear trend that translates into an increase of +1.02 degrees by end of century, if that trend still existed - it doesn't. Did we say cooling yet?

Second, does that red curve look in the least like the accelerating, unequivocal and unprecedented global warming being claimed as happening by the UN's IPCC "elite" scientists? Nope, me neither.

Next, note the behavior of Phil Jones' (and the IPCC climate models') favorite climate forcing over the last 15 years. It is more than obvious that CO2 levels continue their long, relentless march upward, as they have done ever since WWII. And obviously, the chart clearly shows the two trends (CO2 and HadCRUT temps) diverging.

Visually, there appears to be no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures depicted in the chart. And in fact, the R² statistic for the two comes in at an incredibly low +0.04 - in essence, it appears there is no valid relationship between CO2 and global temps. Of course, Phil Jones and the IPCC deny this, but the actual on-the-ground facts are undeniable: human CO2 emissions appear to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, well below the speculative predictions of the IPCC and its climate models.

One final note about global warming and the recent 2011 severe weather incidents. As the HadCRUT chart depicts, global temperatures started a major decline after March 2010. As temperatures categorically crashed, the world suffered from more cold, more snow, more tornadoes, more rain, more flooding and etc. And what do the lamestream media, Hollywood celebrities, left/liberal politicians and alarmist scientists blame? Why, of course, global warming and human CO2 emissions. Go figure.

Sooo, going back to the title of this post, Phil Jones would have been more accurate and truthful if he had said: "Although statistically significant, global warming over the last 15 Years has been rather insignificant, definitely immaterial, likely irrelevant, and basically inconsistent with the climate models." That sounds like it emanated from an honest, objective scientist, no?

BTW, below are charts for other major temperature datasets for the last 15 years ending May 2011. Regardless of the dataset, global temperatures are in a slight cooling phase presently and they could continue to go down, and then again, they may not. That's what natural climate change is about. (click on all images to enlarge)

Additional modern temperature charts.

Australia's Great Barrier Reef Healthy & Unaffected By Climate Change, Peer-Reviewed Study Determines

Read here. A new study by coral reef experts was just published regarding the health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The concern worldwide, and especially in Australia, is that human activities are destroying the GBR. Global warming alarmists have claimed, hysterically, that global warming was causing the GBR coral to die and the reef to shrink.

As Osborne et al. determined in their study, the GBR is alive and well in contrast to the non-scientific, alarmist hysteria.

"The authors write that "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors,"...that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems."...they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium...four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."" [Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess, Kerryn A. Johns 2011: PLoS ONE]

Additional coral reef and peer-reviewed postings.

The IPCC's "Missing CO2" Remains A Major Embarrassment of Its "Consensus" Science

Read here. Back in 2009, NASA launched a new satellite that was supposed to locate the 'missing CO2' that the IPCC has found so elusive, to the point of embarrassment. Being unable to account for the still AWOL CO2, which of course is the main ingredient in the IPCC's AGW hypothesis, is well...er...an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the satellite launch failed. A failure likely due to Obama's NASA of HOPE, since they now think there is a higher calling than actual science and launch successes, which is a whole nother story.

With that snark accomplished, the major problem of the missing CO2 remains and there is now a new study (more on that later) that proffers a new hypothesis to the missing CO2 riddle.

Currently, what is absolutely known about the missing CO2 is that it implies the IPCC's AGW "settled" climate science is not really settled, by a long shot. Essentially here are the facts regarding the "missing CO2."

1. Scientists estimate that only 50% of each years new CO2 emissions can be accounted for - yes, that means the other 50% is missing.

2. Since pre-industrial times, some 499 billion tons of CO2 has been emitted by humans.

3. Since pre-industrial times some 266 billion tons have been stored in the atmosphere; some 118 billion tons has been stored in the oceans; and, these two figures combined represent 334 billion tons stored.

4. Since pre-industrial times, some 165 billion tons of human CO2 emissions have gone missing. (The 165 figure is the difference between 499 and 334 billion tons.)

5. The IPCC "scientists" claim that emitted human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years.

6. The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years. (click on chart to enlarge)

Based on all the above, how could any climate scientist, let a lone the IPCC, claim that the science is "settled"? Not only are vast amounts of CO2 emissions not accounted for on a yearly basis, there is also the known IPCC claim that human CO2 emissions are stored in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousand of years yet 50% goes "missing" each year - in other words, in reality, it ain't stored in the atmosphere.

Thus, not surprisingly, the IPCC and its quack climate scientists resort to a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo speculation to get around these known, major embarrassing CO2 issues with the AGW hypothesis.

Now comes a new study based on...ahem...a computer model that suggests the missing CO2 actually is being absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. Esser et al. propose that a requisite combination of CO2 and nitrogen aerial fertilization explains how the "missing CO2" has actually been absorbed by vegetation, which means it's definitely not remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.

As one can see, the science is far from settled and there is no current consensus as to where the 'missing CO2' goes - that's why scientists like Esser et al. keep performing new research.

"In pursuing this course of action, Esser et al. found that nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere in the absence of an increase in the air's CO2 concentration "would result in only minor additional carbon accumulation in plant biomass," while rising CO2 alone, without consideration of the nitrogen cycle, would bind roughly half of the carbon in the postulated carbon sink. And in the most realistic situation of all, they determined that "a complete ensemble of rising atmospheric CO2 and N2 fixation, denitrification, and leaching is necessary to achieve the 160 Pg [billion tons] C bound in the terrestrial biosphere between 1860 and 2002 as required by the missing sink concept." [GERD ESSER, JENS KATTGE, ABDULLA SAKALLI1 2011: Global Change Biology ]

Additional greenhouse gas and peer-reviewed postings. Greenhouse gas charts.

An Intellectual's Summary: Al Gore & The IPCC Are Irrelevant; CO2 Global Regulation Is Exercise In Futility

Read here. Another excellent synopsis by Walter Russell Mead of Al Gore and his anti-CO2 movement, which has failed miserably, unless wasting billions of dollars and untold human-hours is the ultimate sign of success.

Not sure if Mead is properly designated as an intellectual, but his analysis is exquisite, clearly stating how the whole house of CO2-cards was stillborn from conception. He puts it into a contextual comparison to another infamous failure, the 1920's Kellog-Briand pact that was to outlaw war - forever. That treaty was an absolute flop just like the moronic Kyoto CO2 treaty.

Anyways, a great read and it explains why Gore is now only found in the pages of the Rolling Stone publication instead of on the UN's podium. Thank goodness for small miracles.

Mead's part 1 analysis can be found here.

h/t: Instapundit

Liberal/Left Stupidity Knows No Bounds When It Comes To Climate Change, As Al Gore Proves Once Again

Read here. Without a doubt, Democrats/liberals/leftists/progressives are committed to proving to the public that they might be dumbest "elites" ever conceived.

The global warming and climate change debate continues to provide the pertinent evidence that leftist-types are either stupendously stupid or hysterically anti-science.

Why would any person possessed with a modicum of common sense, with both feet firmly planted on terra firma, suggest that Mt. Rainier is currently short on snow and snow pack? My god, these people are sooo stupid, no? Again, thanks Al for helping the skeptic cause.

Additional left-liberal stupidity postings.

Did Blogger Tom Nelson Defeat The "Climate Crisis"?

Read here. Tom Nelson presents a very interesting Google Trends chart showing the comparison of Watts Up With That site traffic versus the terminology of "climate crisis." One could easily surmise from the data that Anthony Watts has slayed the dragon.

But Tom is way too humble and too little recognized by his peers. He's been at the climate blogging scene about the longest of anyone (since 2005) scouring the web for global warming and climate articles. His blog is a must read and source for many skeptic bloggers (including 'C3') and none of us shower the accolades on him for his dedication and persistence. Tom's blog has had a major impact on the climate debate, and he doesn't do it for the money or the publicity.

So, for both Tom and Anthony, congrats and thanks for your efforts - keep it coming!

NOAA Temperature Data Rebuts IPCC's Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming

The UN's political and propaganda climate agency, commonly known as the IPCC, has made an ongoing, multi-decadal effort to convince both policymakers and the public that global warming was relentless, unprecedented and accelerating. The well publicized IPCC climate predictions even went as far as to claim winters would be wamer with an associated disappearance of snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

Unfortunately for the IPCC though, and its climate model predictions, and its "consensus" science, natural climate forces made a mockery of the exhibited arrogance and hubris embodied within the United Nations climate propaganda agency.

As fate would have it, large expanses of global geography have experienced colder and snowier conditions during many of the last ten years, totally contradicting the "settled" science of politicians and bureaucrats. Case in point is the vast area of the U.S. and its various regional areas. (click on image to enlarge)

The U.S. has been cooling overall for the past 15 years, and as the chart above depicts, its winters, as reported by the NOAA climate services, have contributed to that trend. This happened despite the IPCC claim that increased CO2 emissions results in global warming, not hemispheric cooling. And let there be no doubt, annual CO2 emissions continue to be large and growing.

h/t: Steve Goddard

Additional failed-prediction postings. Modern temperature charts.

Since 1990, IPCC's Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong - Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling

Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.

Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"

The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.

According to Pachauri [IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."

As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.

Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.

Additional failed-prediction postings.

Giving Thanks For Small Miracles: Why Al Gore Is A Green's Worst Nightmare & Always Will Be

A must read here. Just flat out excellent and well written analysis of Al Gore and his demonstrable failure at winning the hearts and mind of the public and body politic.

Why did ManBearPig fail? As they say, read the whole thing but 'carbon pig' is the essential characteristic that guaranteed 'fail'. Thank you, Al, for being the AGW watermelons' worst enemy.

"Once out of office, he assumed the leadership of the global green movement, steering that movement into a tsunami of defeat that, when the debris is finally cleared away, will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time."

"Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch.  Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy.  Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next."

"A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame.  But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine.  The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence.  The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat.  The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways.  Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig."

GOP's Romney & Huntsman Condone A UN Affiliated Green-Fascist's Threats Directed At Skeptics

Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.

“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."

So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.

Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?

These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.

And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.

 

A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions

Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the 2007 IPCC "consensus" climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)

The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.

As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the  the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.

As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.

Additional failed-prediction postings. Other modern temperature, climate model and CO2-greenhouse gas charts/graphs.

Green Fascist In Australia Proposes A Holocaust Solution For AGW Skeptics

Read here and here.

We've long contended that leftists/liberals/greens are some of the dumbest, most anti-science, hysterical persons populating the planet. They also consistently exhibit a love for fascist and totalitarian styles of violence.

The latest example of greens' stupidity, hate and violence? Jill Singer of Australia. What a charming individual and country. We've added her infamous 'final solution' quote to the historical record of greenie craziness: their desires and objectives.

 

 

Update: And...let's not forget the Australian green-fascist who wants this done to skeptics.

Additional left-liberal-green postings about their anti-science/hysteria/stupidity/hate.

Two New Studies: Experts Confirm Global Warming Does Not Cause Increases of Malaria & Heart Failure

Read here and here. Politicians, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, and the lamestream press go out of their way to implicate global warming as the cause of anything that is not desired, including diseases. They make these claims despite a substantial body of peer-reveiwed science saying otherwise.

Two new studies, Haque et al. and Toro et al., analyze the actual empirical evidence and find no connection between global warming and the incidence of malaria and incidents of heart failure.

"The authors write that "malaria is the most important tropical and parasitic disease in the world," noting that in 2008 there were an estimated 243 million cases that accounted for an estimated 863,000 deaths...Haque et al. looked for potential relationships between malaria incidence and various climatic parameters (rainfall, temperature, humidity, sea surface temperature and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation), as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is a satellite-derived measure of surface vegetation greenness...And in Bangladesh, where malaria is endemic, they report that in that same year, malaria morbidity and mortality totals were 84,690 and 154, respectively...The six scientists report that "after adjusting for potential mutual confounding between climatic factors there was no evidence for any association between the number of malaria cases and temperature, rainfall and humidity," and they say that "there was no evidence of an association between malaria cases and sea surface temperatures in the Bay of Bengal and NINO3." [Ubydul Haque, Masahiro Hashizume, Gregory E. Glass, Ashraf M. Dewan, Hans J. Overgaard, Taro Yamamoto 2010: PLoS ONE]

"Working with data pertaining to 7450 cardiovascular-related deaths that occurred within Budapest, Hungary, between 1995 and 2004 -- where the deceased were "medico-legally autopsied" -- Toro et al. looked for potential relationships between daily maximum, minimum and mean temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed, global radiation and daily numbers of the heart-related deaths...scientists report and restate their primary finding numerous times throughout their paper, writing that (1) "both the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures tend to be lower when more death cases occur in a day," (2) "on the days with four or more death cases, the daily maximum and minimum temperatures tend to be lower than on days without any cardiovascular death events," (3) "the largest frequency of cardiovascular death cases was detected in cold and cooling weather conditions," (4) "we found a significant negative relationship between temperature and cardiovascular mortality," (5) "the analysis of 6-hour change of air pressure suggests that more acute or chronic vascular death cases occur during increasing air pressure conditions (implying cold weather fronts)," (6) "we found a high frequency of cardiovascular death in cold weather," (7) "a significant negative relationship was detected between daily maximum [and] minimum temperature[s] and the number of sudden cardiovascular death cases," and (8) "a significant negative correlation was detected between daily mean temperature and cardiovascular mortality." [Klára Törő, Judit Bartholy, Rita Pongrácz, Zsófia Kis, Éva Keller, György Dunay 2010: Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine]

Additional infection-disease and peer-reviewed postings.

Hansen's Global Climate Model In Total Fail: Predicted Ocean Heat Goes Missing

Read here. We've written before about how worthless climate models are as prediction tools, and that their output should never be used by policymakers as a basis for major decisions. Every month it seems there is a new revelation of just how terrible these models are. (click on image to enlarge)

This month, it's the total failure of James Hansen's climate models used at NASA. As the adjacent chart shows, Hansen's model predicted ocean heat to significantly accumulate because humans are emitting ever greater amounts of CO2. Well, we keep emitting CO2 but the oceans stopped gaining heat in the amounts predicted several years ago.

Again, the empirical evidence from actual observations does not support the exaggerated output predictions of AGW-driven climate models. Policymakers need to recognize the robust, consistent model failures and mitigate their influence.

Additional climate-model postings. Climate model and modern temperature charts.

Canadian Lake's Past Water Levels Refutes Both Mann's 'Hockey-Stick' Climate & IPCC's "Unprecedented" Modern Warming

Read here. The IPCC claims that modern "unprecedented" global warming has caused glaciers and snowpack to shrink, and mountainous areas to become more arid, thus diminishing/eliminating essential alpine river discharges. Whether it's the Himalayas or other mountainous regions though, the empirical evidence does not support the claims of modern warming being "unprecedented," nor the convenient disappearing of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age climates of Mann's 'hockey-stick.' 

A new peer-reviewed study by Wolfe et al. found that a Canadian lake's modern water level, which is fed from Rocky Mountain water runoff, is significantly higher than during the Medieval Warming Period and higher than lake levels prior to the extended Medieval span. This is an unequivocal indicator that modern warming is not "unprecedented." (click on image to enlarge)

"A peer-reviewed paper published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters shows that drought of Western North America was considerably worse during the Medieval Warming Period than at the end of the 20th century. The paper also shows much more variation and extremes in the drought record over the past 5200 years than since the advent of industrialization and rising CO2 levels in the latter 20th century. The proxy records clearly show no correlation of drought with the claimed steady CO2 levels...""a new 5200-year record of Lake Athabasca water-level variations, which serves as a sensitive gauge of past changes in alpine-sourced river discharge, reveals that western Canadian society has developed during a rare period of unusually abundant water ‘subsidized’ by prior glacier expansion."" [Brent B. Wolfe, Thomas W. D. Edwards, Roland I. Hall, John W. Johnston 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.

Analysis of Sediment Cores From Arctic Circle Region Determines Medieval Era Warmer Than Modern Period

Read here. Image source here. (click image to enlarge)

The discredited, bogus 'hockey stick' temperature reconstruction has motivated hundreds to conduct new research on the paleo-climate, utilizing valid scientific and statistical methods. The vast majority of these new studies confirm the anecdotal historical evidence that the Medieval Period was the warmest extended time span over the last 2,000 years.

Velle et al. recently published a peer-reviewed analysis of sediment cores from the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic. The analysis revealed the Medieval Warming in a polar Arctic area to be approximately 0.3°C higher than modern temperatures.

"Working with two short gravity cores and two long piston cores of sediments obtained from the deepest part of Lake Skardtjorna, Velle et al. reconstructed histories of chironomid types and concentrations over the past 2000 years, which they translated into mean July air temperatures based on a modern mean July air temperature calibration data set...in the words of the two researchers, a "warming that occurred at 1000 to 830 BP," where BP = 2003, that "may correspond to what is known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'." And based on their graphical representation of that record, we estimate that the peak warmth of the MWP (~ AD 1000-1170) was about 0.3°C greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. [Gaute Velle, Katrine Kongshavn, H. John B. Birks 2011: The Holocene]

Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.

Peer-Research Establishes That Temperatures In China Were Warmer In 1920-40s Versus Modern Temperatures

Read here.  (click on image to enlarge)

Global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, who advocate for more government spending, regulations and taxes to make a gallon of gas even more expensive, claim that current global temperatures are "unprecedented." Nothing could be more scientific-nonsense when, clearly, peer-reviewed study after study shows that current modern warming is lukewarm versus previous periods.

The Gore-Romney-Obama nonsense about "unprecedented" warming can't even hold its own during the 20th century, as a new study by Yi et al. establishes without a reasonable doubt. Early 20th century temperatures prior to large human CO2 emissions were hotter than temperatures in the 1990s and early 21st century.

And to emphasize the anti-science hysteria from Democrat/Republican big government liberals/leftists/progressives, this study shows how absurd their claim is that climate change is only due to recent human CO2 emissions.

"In the ongoing global warming debate there is often a significant difference between the perception of what is going on with the Earth’s climate when compared to what is actually going on.  There is no greater example of this than the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere...A recent study is probably the highest resolution reconstruction using temperature and precipitation records from the region and then correlating to tree-ring data to create a high resolution reconstruction of the summer temperatures for North-Central China...it is clear that the peak of the modern warming cycle for the summer months took place 70-80 years ago.  It should be noted that the United States set the all time temperature record for 50% of the states back in the 1930′s."

"We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585–1587 AD, 1689–1691 AD, 1784–1786 AD and 1876–1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560–1561 AD, 1599–1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615–1617 AD, 1638–1641 AD and 1899–1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527–1529 AD, 1720–1722 AD, 1813–1814 AD, 1856–1857 AD and 1926–1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm–dry and cold–wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold–dry and warm–wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available." [Liang Yi, Hongjun Yu, Junyi Ge, Zhongping Lai, Xingyong Xu, Li Qin and Shuzhen Peng 2011: Climatic Change]

Additional "unprecedented"-warming and peer-reviewed postings. Modern temperature charts.

Algae Research Confirms That North Atlantic During The 1990s Was Cooler Than 1920s-1930s

Read here. There is an abundance of both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions were warmer during the early 20th century than the more recent recorded temperatures. (For an indication of the anecdotal evidence about the 1920s and 1930s go here and scroll down to those decades.)

Scientists and Arctic experts now believe that the early 20th century saw exceptional polar and Northern Hemisphere warming that is yet to be adequately explained since atmospheric CO2 levels were so low at the time.

Now a new study by Halfar et al. adds to growing empirical evidence that indeed the North Atlantic area may have been warmer during the 1920s and 1930s.

"The authors write that "mid- and high-latitude crustose coralline algae are an emerging extra-tropical marine climate archive," as was demonstrated during a field calibration study (Halfar et al., 2008), since "they are amongst the longest-lived shallow marine organisms," and since "they show constant growth over their lifespan...Using a regional network of specimens of the coralline alga Clathromorphum compactum spanning portions of the Labrador Current inshore branch from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to both latitudinal extremes of the eastern Newfoundland shelf,...The new temperature reconstruction revealed "the well-documented regime shift and warming in the northwestern Atlantic during the 1990s." But in addition, the eight researchers report that "large positive changes in algal growth anomalies were also present in the 1920s and 1930s, indicating that the impact of a concurrent large-scale regime shift throughout the North Atlantic was more strongly felt in the subarctic Northwestern Atlantic than previously thought." And they specifically state that this regime shift "may have even exceeded the 1990s event with respect to the magnitude of the warming," as "has recently been suggested for the central and eastern North Atlantic," citing the study of Drinkwater (2006)." [Halfar, J., Hetzinger, S., Adey, W., Zack, T., Gamboa, G., Kunz, B., Williams, B. and Jacob, D.E. 2011: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]

Additional modern-temperature and peer-reviewed postings.

Obama & Romney Despair Over Loss of Favorite Corporate Welfare: Ethanol Subsidy Ended By Senate

Read here and here. The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly voted to end the lucrative ethanol corporate welfare scheme. The two largest supporters of this billions-of-dollars per year welfare scam are President Obama and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and both remained loyal to the bitter end. Their support was primarily due to pandering for Iowa votes and for immense contributions from the ethanol industry.

Originally, politicians embraced ethanol subsidies as a supposed means to reduce global warming and to provide energy independence, plus Obama's team claimed the subsidy would increase the nation's "green job" employment. As this corporate welfare program continued to suck money out of taxpayer wallets, it became obvious that ethanol production/use had no discernible impact on global warming or energy independence or overall employment.

Other than Obama and Romney, the majority of politicians from both parties decided it was time for this brain-dead corporate welfare subsidy to end. When true leadership was required to stare down the pigs at the government trough, neither party's major candidate had the spine to do so.

"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Thursday’s Senate vote in favor of quickly killing a major ethanol industry tax break “ill advised,” alleging it will cost jobs...“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate to reform and modernize tax incentives and other programs that support biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not reforms and are ill advised. They will lead to job loss as our nation begins its economic recovery and pull the rug out from under industry, which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater dependence on foreign oil.”"

Additional ethanol and presidential-politics postings.

Obama and Obama-white are the candidates of big government, big spending, big taxation and economic micro-management. Neither belongs in the Oval office.

'Big Green' Destroys IPCC's Credibility - New Revelations Confirm The Lefts/Liberals Anti-Science Bias

Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.

As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.

The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.

Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!

"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."

"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."

In Another Blow To The Theory That Climate Change Harms Marine Life, New Study Finds That Salmon Love Global Warming

Read here. It is often predicted by global warming alarmists that warming sea temperatures will endanger marine life. Most scientists disagree with these unsubstantiated catastrophic claims, especially as the peer-reviewed evidence does not support them.

And the growing peer-reviewed evidence just keeps mocking the anti-science alarmists: a new research study by Seo et al. determines that Pacific salmon actually prosper and survive longer in waters that are warmer.

"The authors write that "Pacific salmon play an important role as both keystone species in North Pacific ecosystems and as an ecosystem service that provides human food resources for countries of the North Pacific rim,...used multiple regression and path analysis to examine the effects of regional and larger spatial scales of climatic/oceanic conditions on the growth, survival and population dynamics of the species...determined that growth of one-year-old chum salmon in the Okhotsk Sea "was less during the period from the 1940s to the mid-1970s compared to the period from the mid-1980s to the present," which result "was directly affected by warmer sea surface temperatures associated with global warming." And they add that "the increased growth at age one led directly to higher survival rates and indirectly to larger population sizes." [Hyunju Seo, Hideaki Kudo, Masahide Kaeriyama, 2011: Environmental Biology of Fishes]

Additional species-endangerment and peer-reviewed postings.

EU Scientists: The Alps Big Glacier, Despite Modern "Unprecedented" Global Warming, Was Smaller In The Past

Read here. The IPCC and climate alarmists have become well known for their hysterical and failed glacier catastrophe prognostications. To add to the IPCC's growing embarrassment, new research indicates that the Rhône Glacier is currently larger than in previous times, which doesn't lend much credence to their claims of the supposed "unprecedented" warming of the 20th/21st centuries.

Interestingly, due to the glacier's melting, it has actually revealed how warm it really was in the not too distant past - under the glacier were remains of human settlements and forests that are now seeing the light of day, again. Obviously, much to the chagrin of the IPCC's Climategate scientists, the human past has experienced a much warmer climate.

Using novel techniques involving measurement of isotopes Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10, Goehring et al. were able to analyze past glacier growth and shrinkage over the past 11,500 years.

"Until now, scientists have had no accurate way of knowing the long-term history of the glacier. Local records of the ice date back to 1602, and it is clear that the Rhone, like other glaciers in the Alps, has retreated dramatically in the past 150 years. This melting has exposed intriguing clues – remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green...the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate...said he was surprised by the evidence of exposure revealed by the isotopes. The amount of Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 they found "told us that not only were the surfaces exposed for significant periods of time, meaning the Rhone Glacier was smaller than today..." [Brent M. Goehring, Joerg M. Schaefer, Christian Schluechter, Nathaniel A. Lifton, Robert C. Finkel, A.J. Timothy Jull, Naki Akçar, Richard B. Alley 2011: Geology]

Additional glacier-ice sheet and peer-reviewed postings.

The Left/Liberal Anti-Science Agenda: Despite Actual Evidence, NYT's Reporter Blames Global Warming For Food Production Woes

Read here. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have seen their daily reporting essentially become shrill propaganda pieces, pushing the latest left/liberal/Democrat partisan agenda, no matter how unprofessional and idiotic. Unfortunately for the public, this same mindset, plus a dose of significant anti-science attitudes, has invaded their science reporting also. Latest example is Justin Gillis' ("I-hate-real-data") article on global warming and food production.

Either because of extreme stupidity, or the typical left/liberal anti-science approach, Justin contends that food production has slowed and can't keep up with demand, which "scientists believe" is a result of global warming. Like most "journalists" of the left, real facts and data are irrelevant for Justin:

"Today's New York Times has an article by Justin Gillis on global food production that strains itself to the breaking point to make a story fit a narrative.  The narrative, of course, is that climate change "is helping to destabilize the food system."  The problem with the article is that the data that it presents don't support this narrative...But this claim of slowing output is shown to be completely false...Far from slowing, farm output has increased dramatically over the past half-century and on a per capita basis in 2009 was higher than at any point since the early 1980s...Completely unmentioned are the many (most?) scientists who believe that evidence is lacking to connect recent floods and heat waves to "human-induced global warming." In fact, the balance of evidence with respect to floods is decidedly contrary to the assertion in the article, and recent heat wave attribution is at best contested.  More importantly, even in the face of periodic weather extremes, food prices -- which link supply and demand -- exhibit a long-term downward trend, despite recent spikes...Even the experts that Gillis cites don't really support the central thesis of the article."

In conclusion, this NYT's article is another example of fraudulent science reporting by the Times, which is entirely indicative of their partisan, left/liberal propaganda approach to modern "journalism" (honestly, is it a surprise to anyone that their readership has cratered over the past 10 years?). In addition, most scientists now believe that Justin Gillis is incapable of accurate science reporting and is too dumb to be connecting the dots of the "evil global warming" scare-mongering.

Update: Another NYT's anti-science column re: global warming.

Southern Africa: Prediction That Global Warming Would Cause Less Rainfall Is Proven Empirically Wrong

Read here. IPCC predictions that global warming would cause less rainfall across Africa has been proven to be embarrassingly wrong.

A peer-reviewed study examining the precipitation amounts in the country of Zimbabwe over a 100+ year period determined that median, minimum and maximum amounts were unaffected by the "global warming."

"..."author writes that there is increasing concern in southern Africa about the possible decline of rainfall as a result of global warming," with some studies claiming that "average rainfall in Zimbabwe had declined by 10% or 100 mm during the last 100 years" and stating that this phenomenon was "due to global warming."...utilized rainfall data obtained from 40 observation stations with records beginning as early as 1892 and ending in the year 2000...researcher reports that rainfall records for the 1892 to 2000 period at the 40 stations in Zimbabwe do not demonstrate evidence of changes in median, high or low rainfall during the early part of the rainy season, the mid-to-end part of the rainy season, or the whole year, noting that "other studies in Africa and Zimbabwe (New et al., 2006; Conway et al., 2008; Aguilar et al., 2009) made the same conclusion."" [Dominic Mazvimavi 2010: Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences]

Latest Data From EU Scientists: Medieval Warming In Switzerland Was Unprecedented Versus The Current Lukewarm Temperatures

Read here. Map source here.

Magny et al. utilizing advanced scientific techniques, reconstructed 1,000 years of past summer (July) temperatures for the Swiss Jura Mountains region. Unequivocally, they found that July temperatures during the Medieval Period were significantly warmer than modern summer temps.

"Working at Lake Joux in the Swiss Jura Mountains...employed a multi-proxy approach with pollen and lake-level data to develop a 1000-year history of the mean temperature of the warmest month of the year (MTWA), which was July...based on the Modern Analogue Technique. This work revealed what they describe as an "MWP between ca. AD 1100 and 1320," during which time the MTWA at Joux Lake exceeded that of the 1961-1990 reference period by fully 2.0°C....Thus, it would appear that the peak warmth of the MWP at Lake Joux exceeded that of the CWP at that location by something on the order of 0.4-1.0°C." [Michel Magnya, Odile Peyrona, Emilie Gauthiera, Boris Vannièrea, Laurent Milleta, Bruno Vermot-Desroches 2011: Quaternary Research]

Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.

New Refutation of Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Science: Medieval Warming Prosperity Collapsed Due To Devastation of Rapid Climate Cooling

Read here. In peer-reviewed research published by the influential  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), scientists reconstructed 5,600 years of climate conditions in Greenland. This new reconstruction confirmed the warm and optimum climate conditions of the Medieval Warming and the rapid onset of the frigid Little Ice Age.

In the case of Greenland's flourishing Viking settlements, the climate change to a cold phase meant total destruction of their existing society and settlements.

This new PNAS study totally refutes Michael Mann's entirely bogus 'hockey stick' portrayal of climate being benign and unchanging prior to the 20th century.

"What climate scientists have been able to ascertain is that an extended cold snap, called the Little Ice Age, gripped Greenland beginning in the 1400s. This has been cited as a major cause of the Norse’s disappearance. Now researchers led by Brown University show the climate turned colder in an earlier span of several decades, setting in motion the end of the Greenland Norse...The Vikings arrived in Greenland in the 980s...The arrival coincided with a time of relatively mild weather, similar to that in Greenland today. However, beginning around 1100, the climate began an 80-year period in which temperatures dropped 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit), the Brown scientists concluded...“You have an interval when the summers are long and balmy [Editor: yes, Greenland summers "long and balmy" during the Medieval period] and you build up the size of your farm, and then suddenly year after year, you go into this cooling trend, and the summers are getting shorter and colder and you can’t make as much hay. You can imagine how that particular lifestyle may not be able to make it,”...[William J. D’Andreaa, Yongsong Huanga, Sherilyn C. Fritz, N. John Anderson 2011: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.

Himalayan Glaciers Stable Since 1992 Despite Large Human CO2 Emissions, Scientists Determine

Read here. The IPCC "consensus" science and global warming alarmists stated that Himalayan glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate and predicted their demise from CO2-induced warming would be soon. A recent peer-reviewed study finds that large glaciers in the northwest Himalayas are not experiencing accelerated warming, thus they won't be disappearing as predicted.

"Working in the Nanga Parbat region of northern Pakistan...used a multi-temporal/multi-scale approach based on historical data, repeat photography and satellite imagery to develop a 70-year history of the behavior of that region's Raikot Glacier...two German scientists report that visual comparison of repeat photography indicates "relatively small rates of recession and surface changes over the last seven decades," and they say that "in the 1994 image, no significant retreat of the glacier margin can be detected in comparison with 1985."...they report that "glacier fluctuations over the past 70 years are characterized by retreat between the 1930s and 1950s, a marked advance between the 1950s and 1980s, and a relatively stable situation after 1992," adding that "a general trend of reduced glacier thickness does not appear significant over the whole observation period."" [Susanne Schmidt, Marcus Nusser 2009: Journal of Glaciology]

Additional glacier/ice-sheet, failed-predictions and peer-reviewed postings.

Clams Love Higher Ocean Acidification New Research Discovers

Read here. Ocean acidification, the other CO2 boogieman global warming alarmists are hysterical about, has been found in multiple studies not to harm marine life. A new study by Range et al. regarding clams and lower pH seawater confirms what previous scientific research by experts has shown, projected future water pH is not a detriment to sea life.

To add to the misery of ocean acidification alarmists everywhere, the scientists actually found that clam mortality lessened when the seawater pH was less (increased "acidification"). In essence, clams love "acidification."

"...the authors write that "whether and how ocean acidification will affect marine organisms, ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is currently a topic of great concern," and in their specific case that concern is directed towards juvenile clams of coastal marine ecosystems, since they say these shellfish "link primary productivity with upper trophic levels" and "are also important economic resources for fisheries and aquaculture."...experiment designed to test the effects of increased pCO2 and reduced pH of seawater on the calcification, growth and mortality of juvenile clams...At the conclusion of their experiment, the eight researchers say that they found "no differences among pH treatments in terms of net calcification, size or weight of the clams,"...they say that mortality was significantly reduced in the acidified treatments, which was something they describe as a truly "unexpected result."" [Range, P., Chicharo, M.A., Ben-Hamadou, R., Pilo, D., Matias, D., Joaquim, S., Oliveira, A.P. and Chicharo, L. 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]

Additional ocean-acidification and peer-reviewed postings.

Extreme Weather & AGW: Is Sen. Lieberman Just Dumb? Senile? Or, Are All Liberals/Leftists Just Anti-Science?

Read here. Senator Lieberman, a Democrat from the state of Connecticut, has for years been a hysterical global warming alarmist, constantly pushing CO2 emissions legislation, regulation and taxes. His latest "climate science" idiocy is that human CO2-induced global warming is causing this year's extreme weather (ie, tornadoes, floods, etc.) in the U.S., thus we need "climate change" legislation.

Honestly, are liberals really this incredibly stupid? Is it just science ignorance?

The chart to the left shows that U.S. temperatures for the January-May 2011, year-to-date period was the coldest over the last 15 years. And literally, the U.S. has actually been cooling at a (minus) -10.08°F per century trend since 1997 for the January-May period, not CO2-warming as predicted by big government advocates and politicians. [Ed: typo corrected to -10.08, not -11.08; thanks, Bill] (source of chart here; click chart to enlarge)

Even despite NOAA's forensic climate scientists stating there is no connection between AGW and recent weather events, and despite multiple peer-reviewed studies categorically stating there is no connection between CO2 emissions and disaster losses, the liberal/leftists/progressives, like Sen. Lieberman, keep pushing blatant climate lies that will hopefully justify the cause of greater government control and more tax revenues, aka 'climate change legislation.'

Or, are Sen. Lieberman's climate/weather claims just another indication of the natural progressive/liberal mindset, a true disdain for empirical science no matter how monstrously stupid it appears to the rest of us?

Romney-ObamaScare: Their "Global Warming" Hysteria Is Wrong, Per Latest NOAA Data - U.S. Cooling Last 15 Years

Source here. (click on images to enlarge)

Presidential candidates Romney and Obama are at the forefront of pushing global warming hysteria, hoping to convince the public that more taxes, laws, regulations and micro-management are needed to make CO2-based fossil fuels more expensive and scarce. Both misguided aspirants are too in love with their fabricated beliefs to even pause to check what America's own climate agencies are reporting: the U.S. is cooling, not warming.

And, please note, not a single advisor, nor any of their climate science "experts" foresaw this lengthy cooling trend that is contrary to the "settled-science" warming predictions.

The above chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting June 1, 1997 and ending May 31, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending May was the 4th coldest May-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, May 2011 was 25th coldest May in the past 117 years.

The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.8°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.

And what about "global warming" in Romney's home state of Massachusetts? Over the last 15 years ending May 2011, temperatures are cooling at a -2.6°F per century rate.

As for the 10-year period ending May 2011, the U.S. cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 13.1°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.

At some point, U.S. continental warming will resume, but the extended decade-plus long global cooling trend persists, contradicting the experts. None of the IPCC climate models, nor "consensus" experts predicted this cooling trend for the continental U.S.

Additional modern temperature charts. Historical temperature charts.

Obama-RomneyCare: Potentially 78 Million Could Lose Health Insurance Leading Experts Determine

Read here. As our previous post about Mitt Romney and global warming suggested, this hopeful GOP presidential nominee is a man who likes big government solutions. More laws, regulations, taxes, micro-management and bureaucracy are his favored "silver bullets," which RomneyCare is the classic example. Unfortunately for Massachussets and Romney, this legislation, which is the precursor to ObamaCare, has been a failed big government solution. 

As for the similarly designed ObamaCare, a new survey by McKinsey & Co. has found the following:

"The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work..."

As this new analysis about the Obama health care legislation indicates, along with our previous post about California's radical-green economic disaster produced by liberals/leftists/progressives, advocates of big government solutions are this nation's worst leaders.

For the American voter and taxpayer, Romney and Obama are clear examples of being incapable of solving existing problems without creating even larger ones with the socialist-like solutions they impose on others, forcibly. Neither is the right person to bring America back to prosperity and to the small government principles envisioned by the founders.

Romney Embraces California's Destructive Environmental Regulations To Conquer The Feared "Global Warming"

Read here. California's politicians who favor big government solutions have placed the state's economic climate into a death spiral, much of it due to new environmental regulations. These regulations are simply driving business away from the state, leaving wholesale economic destruction in their path.

"Ideas matter, particularly when colored by religious fanaticism, wreaking havoc even in the most favored of places. Take, for instance, Iran, a country blessed with a rich heritage and enormous physical and human resources...Then there’s California, rich in everything from oil and food to international trade and technology, but still skimming along the bottom of the national economy. The state’s unemployment rate is now worse than Michigan’s...Among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan regions, four of the six with the highest unemployment numbers are located in the Golden State: Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco...In California green zealots compel companies to shift their operations to states that are still interested in growing their economy — like Texas. The green regime is one reason why CEO Magazine has ranked California the worst business climate in the nation."

California's politicians and bureaucrats have literally become possessed by a fundamentalist green ideology, combined with an irrational fear that they will perish from "global warming" (see chart to left, click to enlarge) due to the evil carbon dioxide molecule.

The incredible green stupidity, "warming" hysteria and irrational behavior of California's politicians have had horrendous economic consequences for that state, which are undeniable.

The empirical evidence is so clear cut, so stark, so obvious that there is no way a national politician would even think of following the crazed, hysterical green environmental regulations that rained down economic destruction on California, right? You'd be wrong, though.

Views of GOP presidential contender, George Romney:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting...“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Romney is of the same ilk who have caused the greatest state to become the largest economic wasteland in the U.S. The man is not fit for the Oval office while being possessed by, and embracing, the green radical agenda.

The Global Warming Threat Continues Its Retreat: Feeble "Warming" of Oceans Was Not Predicted By IPCC

Read here. Over the last 15 years, the alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists have been predicting a significant warming of sea surface temperatures due to the vast increase of human greenhouse (CO2) gases. This was the supposed no-brainer, "consensus" prediction that government and bureaucrat elites swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Yet, over that time span, the guaranteed "warming" trend has been essentially non-existent, other than extended warming spikes due to strong El Niño phases. The two charts below indicate the lack of a significant warming trend for ocean waters, globally, over the last 15 years.

The left chart represents the Southern Hemisphere seas, and the right chart, the Northern Hemisphere. Per the IPCC consensus climate science, this feeble level of "warming" (cooling?) was not supposed to happen. (click on images to enlarge)

 

Clearly, policymakers and the public have been seriously misled by unproven climate science techniques, non-verifiable climate models, and researchers solely devoted to increased government AGW-research funding.

Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Failed-prediction postings.

The Left/Liberal Bizarro, Anti-Science Hyperbole Continues: Lefty Blogger Romm Calls CO2 Growth "Super-Exponential"

Read here. Recently, Willis Eschenbach did a devastating piece on Joe Romm's anti-science, specifically taking him to task for the ludicrous claim that atmospheric CO2 levels are exhibiting "super-exponentially, accelerating" growth. Willis does an excellent job of explaining real, empirical science to Romm in regards to CO2, and below we add a few more charts that further expose the lunacy of typical left/liberal/progressive/Democrat anti-science, which Romm exemplifies. (click on images to enlarge)

The three charts above depict atmospheric CO2 growth in different formats. Indeed, the CO2 levels are increasing, per the seasonal corrected measurement data since late 1958. The growth of CO2 level is fairly monotonous, and, yes, the growth rate has increased over time.

But there is absolutely no objective, numerical evidence that CO2 growth is on an exponential path, let alone a "super-exponential, accelerating" growth, whatever the hell that is since it's non-scientific terminology (did we say anti-science propaganda yet?). Ooops...ahem...The Romm claim of super-exponential growth is pure anti-science propaganda!

In addition, way back in summer of 1988, James Hansen provided testimony that if CO2 levels continued growing in a "business as usual" manner, the globe would suffer from significant warming. On the top chart above is marked when Hansen's testimony occurred, which clearly indicates Hansen's prediction (a non-exponential prediction, btw) about CO2 growth was prescient. His CO2 prediction was at least reality-based, unlike Romm's anti-science ramblings.

And fortunately for the world, Hansen's climate model temperature prediction, and leftist scare hypebole, that global temperatures would warm significantly due to "business as usual" was an utter failure, as we now know.

Update: Total CO2 emissions through 2010. "Business as usual" growth, but not exponential.

Addtional greenhouse gas postings and greenhouse gas charts.

The Destructiveness of Obama's Business Climate Change - Unprecedented Failure

Read here. View original cartoon here.

 

Newest Peer-Reviewed Study: Experts Find That IPCC Climate Models Are Basically Worthless

Read here. The IPCC and all the alarmist climate scientists/pundits base their catastrophic global warming predictions on the output of a handful of climate models. They present the models' predictions and forecasts as evidence to policymakers that action must be immediately taken to curb human CO2 emissions, or else "the world will end as we know it."

While presenting climate models' forecasts as gospel, there is ample real world evidence that the models are terrible at climate predictions, be they global temperature predictions or other climate condition forecasts (eg., sea-level, snow-pack predictions).

A new study by experts confirms what the majority of scientists are now reluctantly admitting: the IPCC climate models are worthless when used for future climate prognostications.

"“Forecasting researchers, with few exceptions, have ignored the current major forecasting controversy: global warming and the role of climate modelling in resolving this challenging topic. In this paper, we take a forecaster’s perspective in reviewing established principles for validating the atmospheric-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) used in most climate forecasting, and in particular by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...The omissions in Chapter 10 of the IPCC report and most of the subsequent research lie in the lack of evidence that the models actually produce good forecasts. There is ample testimony in the forecasting literature of the difficulties of forecasting beyond the range of data on which a model is constructed...“…the structural weaknesses in the GCM identified here suggest that a reliance on the policy implications from the general circulation models, and in particular the primary emphasis on controlling global CO2 emissions, is misguided...“The scientific community of global climate modellers has surely taken unnecessary risks in raising the stakes so high when depending on forecasts and models that have many weaknesses.”" [Robert Fildes, Nikolaos Kourentzesa 2011: International Journal of Forecasting]

Additional climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

Romney's CarbonTax: Obama Made Energy Prices "Skyrocket" & Mitt Wants To Boost Them Into Orbit

Read here. Everyone and his mama now knows that Obama promised "skyrocketing" energy prices, and, by Allah God, he actually delivered that result. He carried out his promise while keeping unemployment high and squeezing the wallet of middle America. Now, the GOP's Obama-lite candidate wants to build on Obama's big government economic and energy disasters.

Mitt Romney, the current leading poll contender for the GOP presidential nomination, has written a book calling for 'carbon taxes' to be assessed on fossil fuels. Soooo...Romney's solution to the economy and energy problems is to raise prices of energy even higher for the average American, while continuing Obama's policy to discourage cheap fossil fuels. Brilliant!

Just what this country needs - impoverish more Americans and drive more jobs overseas to countries with lower costs.

Romney is a big government, liberal Massachusetts Republican whose RomneyCare was the genesis of ObamaCare. And now he wants to pay his respects to Obama by doubling down on economic misery and skyrocketing energy prices.

Why would the leading GOP contender, labeled "conservative" by the MSM press, propose such idiocy? Well, the Federal government needs more revenues to pay for the favored spendthrift policies of big government technocrats and politicians. By taxing fossil fuels, the carbon tax would automatically open up the spigots to American wallets on a daily basis. Once this tax is implemented, it would go on forever, with more increases implemented in the future when needed, just like the social security payroll tax.

So there is no misunderstanding by the naive and gullible, the Romney proposed carbon tax is a perpetual scheme to suck-the-money into the Washington D.C. blackhole of out-of-control spending, incompetence and political corruption.

Of course, Romney the slickster won't admit this as being the reason. Instead he states we need a carbon tax to save Americans from "global warming" that's been warming cooling Americans for the last 15 years. Whatever, Mitt...

Mitt Romney Can't Resist Temptation: Another Big Govt Republican Sniffs The AGW Glue

Read here and here. The slick, slippery, elite GOP technocrat that gave the world the failed RomneyCare, has now chosen to join with other big government proponents by embracing the anthropogenic global warming hysteria. Most certainly our nation has a lot of very difficult problems to solve but quite frankly, global warming is not one of them, which Romney can't seem to grasp.

In fact, the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 15 years at a 3°F degree per century rate - that's right, cooling, not warming. And, by the way, global warming has decelerated (see chart, click on to enlarge) over the last 15 years, while atmospheric CO2 levels continue growing in a "business as usual" mode.

This is the real-world, empirical climate evidence that the big government, elite, Republican/Democrat political class constantly deny. Romney and his ilk are essentially empircal science deniers.

Why? Because politicians like Romney have to lie about scary problems, such as global warming, in order to justify greater government taxation, spending and regulation, which is why our country is on the path to becoming the next Greece. Plus, in the case of Romney, he's just another Obama-lite craving to be loved by the coastal establishment and the MSM, which means he has to deny the actual global warming cooling empirical evidence.

Unlike Palin, Romney can't think outside the establishment box, which means he has to fabricate believable falsehoods instead of challenging the consensus. Whereas Palin is a natural born leader, Romney is a natural born follower of elitism that condones lying to the public about everything.

For example, here's a big whopping lie that Romney spreads about global warming: "Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions.” Then there is the whole issue of Romney totally ignoring hundreds of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists that challenge the "consensus" orthodoxy of climate science.

Of course, lying is second nature to Romney, as evidenced by his recent claims that RomneyCare is different than ObamaCare. But in fact, both healthcare acts are alike, with just about all leftists/liberals and conservatives/libertarians being unanimous on that - a true bipartisan consensus generated by Romney.

Now, one must give credit when due because Romney is correct that the climate is changing, but it's done that forever - no big surprise there. The world has indeed warmed since the Little Ice Age ended, some 250 years ago, but that has been primarily driven by natural forces, not CO2. And yes, greenhouse gases from humans have likely increased the amount of warming but again it's natural warming that dominates. This cooling and warming stuff just happens, and in reality, humans can't do anything about it other than adapt to the change.

With Romney's declaration of being AGW-faithful, he joins Newt, Huntsman and Gov. Christie who have needlessly taken themselves out of the race for the Republican nomination. These are the GOP Al Gore acolytes, which conservative and libertarian voters will most likely not follow.

For other Republicans wanting to bitch slap these AGW-loving, GOP elitists during debates, here is some material to help you do so:

1. Is current global warming "unprecedented"?
2. Is current global warming "accelerating"?
3. Is current global warming "unequivocal"?
4. Is current global warming causing more "severe" weather?
5. Is current global warming causing "accelerating sea" level increases?

Experts Discover That Tropical Fish Can Survive Significant Temperature Increases, Contrary To Consensus Science

Read here. The IPCC consensus science predicted that global warming would have a devastating impact on tropical fish in shallow sea waters. Non-Climategate scientists decided to challenge the "consensus" and conducted experiments on tropical fish. The IPCC consensus prediction turns out to be wrong.

Eme et al. exposed two species of tropical fish to significantly warmer water. Both species easily survived the hotter waters, indicating that tropical fish have a high toleration for temperature variation.

"Eme et al. conclude, in their words, that "terapon and mullet demonstrate exceptional tolerance to high temperatures," and they say "it seems likely that shallow-water sea surface temperatures would have to be much higher to adversely affect these and other shallow water marine fishes...they write that "despite diverse independent origins across taxa, fishes may share a common suite of physiological adaptations allowing them to survive periodic exposure to high environmental temperature ..."and that "exceptional thermal tolerance may be common throughout the biodiverse shallow waters of the Indo-Pacific." Thus, in the final analysis, they conclude that "tropical marine fishes inhabiting fringing nursery environments may have the upper thermal tolerance necessary to endure substantial increases in sea temperatures." [John Eme, Theresa F. Dabruzzi, Wayne A. Bennett 2011: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology]

Additional specie-endangerment, failed-prediction, and peer-reviewed postings.

Dear Gov. Christie: 22 Peer-Reviewed Studies Prove That Global Warming Is Not The Cause of Increased Disaster Losses

Read here. NJ's Governor Christie and other hack, warming alarmist politicians, often assert that global warming is causing climate change that results in growing disaster losses. Unfortunately for presidential hopefuls like Christie, ignoring the actual empirical research is a nomination death wish now that the internet allows anyone to find out if a candidate has gone into 'bozo' alarmist mode.

A lesson to be learned in order to avoid looking like a climate 'bozo': future presidential hopefuls (and other politicians) should be very wary of most "science advisers" who have in mind political agendas, not empirical science.

With that said, a Dutch scientist reviewed 22 recent peer-reviewed studies regarding disaster losses and global warming. Not a single study found a connection between extreme weather, global warming and increased disaster losses. The 22 studies covered the entire spectrum of disasters, including: bushfire, earthquake, flood, hail, landslide, windstorm, thunderstorm, tornado, tropical storm, hurricane and hail.

"The Dutch researcher reports that "most of the 22 studies have not found a trend in disaster losses, after normalization for changes in population and wealth." In fact, he says that "all 22 studies show that increases in exposure and wealth are by far the most important drivers for growing disaster losses ," a conclusion that has also been reached by Changnon et al. (2000), Pielke et al. (2005) and Bouwer et al. (2007). And he adds that "no study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend."...Reiterating these observations in his paper's concluding paragraph, Bouwer says that although "economic losses from various weather-related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events (e.g., wildfires and hailstorms), have increased around the globe," the 22 studies he analyzed "show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change."" [Laurens M. Bouwer 2011: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]

Additional severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings.

A Consensus: U.S. Scientists Discover Another Major Climate Model Flaw - Past Model Predictions Are Incorrect

Read here. As agenda-driven alarmists and MSM hysteria-mongers have monotonously repeated, there is a "consensus" regarding global warming. This "consensus" though was primarily based on virtual climate models and their predictions. Unfortunately for the alarmists and the IPCC, the climate models have proven to be terribly flawed by newer and more comprehensive research. To add to the continuous climate modeller misery of flaws, another major one was recently documented in peer-reviewed research.

Sierra et al. discovered that climate models are presently incapable of accurately modeling the release of CO2 from the soil, which holds multiple times more carbon than the atmosphere. In essence, climate model predictions will continue to be wrong as long as soil CO2 releases continue to be incorrectly accounted for.

"A new study concludes that models may be predicting releases of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are either too high or too low, depending on the region, because they don’t adequately reflect variable temperatures that can affect the amount of carbon released from soil.

 "*There is concern that a large portion of this carbon will be released to the atmosphere as global average temperatures increase...*Too little attention has been paid to the effect of temperature variability in this process...*In high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature variability is expected to decrease, and release of soil carbon will probably be lower than that predicted by changes in average temperature...* At lower latitudes, where both average temperature and variability are expected to increase, the release of soil carbon will probably be higher than that predicted by changes in average temperature.

“The findings of this study can greatly modify past predictions about the effects of future average temperatures on ecosystem respiration,” the scientists wrote in their conclusion. “Changes in both temperature and precipitation variance would likely produce complex behaviors not incorporated in current model predictions.”" [Sierra, C. A., Harmon, M. E., Thomann, E., Perakis, S. S., Loescher, H. W. 2011: Biogeosciences]

Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Jon Huntsman: Anatomy of A Failed Presidential Bid By A 'Green' Republican

Read here. An Iowa poll on Republican candidates just came out. Jon Huntsman got just 1 vote (not even 1%). This moderate liberal, green Republican candidate, that the MSM press wants the Republicans to nominate, just flat-out fails to resonate with conservative/libertarian/independent voters.

It would seem being a Republican candidate who actually believes the bogus claim that "90% of scientists think global warming is a crisis" is definitely not a winning formula, which this Obama-lite candidate is proving in spades.

Memo to Republican presidential candidates: If you don't want to be on the Climate Depot dufus list with other green morons, drop both the bogus "90%" claim and the human CO2 emissions fear-mongering schtick - they don't play in Peoria, or even Des Moines or Dubuque.

135 Years of Climate Change In India: No Change In Rainfall, Despite IPCC Prediction of A Severe Decrease

Read here. Over the historical past and throughout the 20th century, India suffered from many devastating droughts and famines. Recognizing the importance of rainfall to the sub-continent, the IPCC predicted that global warming will cause a decreasing trend in rainfall for India, potentially leading to even more dangerous droughts and famines. The latest peer-reviewed research though finds the IPCC prediction to be all wet.

Kumar et al. reviewed precipitation records over the period from 1871 to 2005. In summary, there was no significant trend for rainfall across India during this period of "unprecedented" warming that the IPCC contends was wreaking rainfall havoc on India and the world.

"In the words of the three researchers, "half of the sub-divisions showed an increasing trend in annual rainfall, but for only three was this trend statistically significant." Similarly, they state that "only one sub-division indicated a significant decreasing trend out of the 15 sub-divisions showing decreasing trend in annual rainfall." In terms of monthly rainfall during the monsoon months of June to September, they found that "during June and July, the number of sub-divisions showing increasing rainfall is almost equal to those showing decreasing rainfall," and in August they say that "the number of sub-divisions showing an increasing trend exceeds those showing a decreasing trend, whereas in September, the situation is the opposite." In addition, they report that "the majority of sub-divisions showed very little change in monthly rainfall in most of the months," while "for the whole of India, no significant trend was detected for annual, seasonal, or monthly rainfall."..."In every way that the data could be analyzed, Kumar et al. could find no hint of the decrease in rainfall that the IPCC had suggested would occur over India..." [Vijay Kumara; Sharad K. Jainb; Yatveer Singha 2010: Hydrological Sciences Journal]

Additional drought-flood, failed predictions and peer-reviewed postings.