C3

The Global Warming Permafrost Tipping Point: Scientists Discover Permafrost Thawing Not Happening

The IPCC scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that increasing CO2 emissions would lead to a catastrophic permafrost tipping point, unleashing gigatons of methane gas - they were wrong

Read here. The Fakegate global warming alarmists and the IPCC's Climategate scientists are enraptured with the doom and gloom of climate change "tipping points." A favorite tipping point is that greater levels of CO2 emissions would cause a global warming that thaws the permafrost in northern latitude regions (tundra regions), such as Siberia, thus releasing gigatons of the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

This is referred to as the global warming permafrost tipping point that results in runaway temperature increases. A new peer reviewed study finds that is not happening.

"Focusing on the massive seasonally-frozen ground region of Eurasia, Frauenfeld and Zhang employed a database of soil temperature profiles obtained at 423 stations to estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at 387 sites, which they did for the period 1930-2000, with an extension to 2008...Except for warming during the 1970s and 80s, northern Eurasian temperatures appear to have remained fairly stable. And of that warming, Frauenfeld and Zhang state that "the strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period." Thus, their work provides little to no evidence for any significant warming of this massive portion of earth's land mass over the past two decades, and absolutely no evidence for recent CO2-induced warming." [Oliver W Frauenfeld, Tingjun Zhang 2011: Environmental Research Letters]

Conclusion: The permafrost tipping point does not endanger the world since the thawing of northern global regions has stabilized since the 1990's, despite the huge increase in CO2 emissions.

Previous permafrost-tundra, climate-tipping-points, failed-predictions and peer-reviewed postings.

FakeGate.org, The Web Site: The Lunacy & Corruption of Global Warming Alarmism Immortalized

The FakeGate web site will remind Internet visitors forever of the lunacy and corruption of global warming alarmism pushed on the public without remorse by the left / progressive / green elites

Read here. The Daily Bayonet does an excellent job mocking the activist groups that made Fakegate not only possible but are also caught condoning the obvious corruption of climate science that took place.

"You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog...Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since...Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story..."

And as a result, there is now a new web site, Fakegate.org, that will forever immortalize the global warming alarmism lies and deception that the National Center of Science Education, Huffington Post, DeSmogBlog, Greenpeace, ThinkProgress and the Pacific Institute have come to represent.

Is it any surprise that public opinion in regards to global warming concerns has plummeted in recent years because the never ending climate change fakery and dishonesty that these alarmist groups continuously push?

"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey."

Thank you, green lunatics and leftist idiots!

“Basically, [the fake memo] reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

The IPCC, Trenberth and Hurricanes: Climate Change Science & Global Warming Alarmism Done The 'Peter Gleick' Way

'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example

Read here (h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.

Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":

"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."

And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.

"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?

Climate Scientists Confirm That Actual Atmospheric Water Vapor Levels Invalidate Global Warming 'Tipping Point' Hypothesis

AGW alarmist climate scientists predicted that increasing human CO2 emissions would cause an increase in water vapor with the result being a global warming tipping point - empirical evidence completely discredits that prediction

(click image to enlarge)

Read here. Very simply, for the IPCC's climate models predicted runway global warming to happen, there has to be a positive feedback from atmospheric CO2 that pushes the climate to a "tipping point." The positive feedback in the IPCC's computer models is an ever increasing atmospheric water vapor level (greenhouse gas) due to rising temperatures from CO2.

In the real world though, that positive feedback has not happened, as the adjacent chart of relative humidity (atmospheric water vapor) and global temperatures shows. And now, a new peer reviewed study in the prestigious Journal of Climate is confirming that the global warming tipping point hypothesis is without any empirical merit.

"A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate]

Conclusion: The IPCC alarmist global warming tipping point does not exist over the long term - instead, over periods less than a decade, the climate will likely return to an equilibrium position due to built-in negative feedbacks.

Previous positive-negative feedback, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Greenhouse gas charts, plus modern and historical temperature charts.

New Satellite Information Refutes Major IPCC Climate Prediction: AGW Scientists & Mainstream Press 'Stunned'

The catastrophic prediction that the world's major glaciers, including those of the Himalayas, were melting to nothingness turns out to be spectacularly wrong - global warming scientists & MSM press literally stunned by real world facts

Read here and here. During a week where honest scientists and the gullible mainstream press were again whacked in the head by the infamous 2x4 of global warming alarmist corruption, new research based on empirical evidence continues to reveal that the IPCC's alarmist predictions are bogus, if not terminally corrupt.

New satellite evidence shows that the Himalayan glaciers have lost zero ice for the last 10 years, which is the exact opposite of what the IPCC, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Federation and U.S. climate scientists have predicted, and claimed to actually be happening.

As one of the world's major 'Big Green' propaganda alarmist tools, the UK's Guardian had to be stunned itself to write this about the Himalayan glaciers and the related 'stunned' climate scientists.

"The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows"..."The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas...have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows...The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."

As the sordid fakery and fabrications of a major global warming alarmist scientist, Peter Gleick, continues to embarrassingly unravel, the mainstream press also has to cope with real world climate facts - the world is not dangerously warming and causing all the exaggerated global warming catastrophes they previously reported (predicted).

Previous posts about glacier-ice-sheet, failed-prediction and mainstream-media.

IPCC's Climate Models' Positive Feedback Assumption Proven To Be Incorrect, Per The Actual Empirical Evidence

The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead

Read here. The IPCC claims of a positive feedback mechanism that would cause runaway global warming, and a climate change tipping point, have never been validated as being climate science reality. Yet the IPCC's climate models all employ this phantom positive feedback, resulting in their infamous predictions of catastrophic climate events.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years.

"A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”...The average global cloud height is linked to the average global temperature—generally, the higher the average cloud height, the higher the average surface temperature, and vice versa...A point well-recognized by Davies and Molloy when they write “Changes in cloud properties in response to rising surface temperatures represent some of the strongest, yet least understood, feedback processes in the climate system.“..."If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature."...According to the calculations of Davies and Molloy, the negative climate forcing from a decrease in the average global cloud amount during the past 10 years has more than offset the positive forcing from an increase in greenhouse gases from human activities." [Roger Davies, Mathew Molloy 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Previous failed-prediction, negative-positive feedback and peer-reviewed postings.

AGU Scientific Integrity (Whitewash?) Task Force: Will They Exonerate Peter Gleick's Deception & Fraud?

The former American Geophysical Union (AGU) leader on scientific integrity, Peter Gleick, confesses to being the antithesis of integrity - will the AGU now perform a slap-on-the-hand cover up of one of its own?

The original "Super Hero" cartoon by Josh

Read here. The seemingly never ending corruption of the American "elite" science establishment again blasted into the public conscience with fraudster Peter Gleick's confession of climate change / global warming science related malfeasance.

Based on recent experience of the investigations of scientific wrongdoing in the realm of "consensus" global warming science, the official whitewash (coverup?) and the usual condoning (the-ends-justify-the-means) rationale will likely fall into the laps of Gleick's former "integrity" AGU comrades. And the members of the integrity (exoneration?) task force are:

 

• David J. Chesney, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, Michigan

• Floyd DesChamps, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC

• Karen Fischer, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

• Tim Grove, MIT Earth Atmosphere & Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts

• Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia

• Noel Gurwick, UCSUSA, Washington, DC

• Dennis Moore, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, Washington

• Arthur Nowell, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

• Len Pietrafesa, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina

• Jeff Plescia, Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland

• Peter Schuck, NASA/GSFC CODE 674, Greenbelt, Maryland

• Jagadish Shukla, Geo Mason-Center Ocean/Land Atmosphere, Calverton, Maryland

• Vivian Weil, Center for Ethics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois

The Left / Progressives' Anti-Science, Wrapped In Mental & Emotional Instability Revealed: FakeGate Scientist-Author Confesses

Peter Gleick, a progressive, green activist Democrat, confesses to anti-scientific and anti-integrity behavior in the pathetic attempt to smear the Heartland Institute

Read here and here. From the progressive Democrat mindset that brought the world the bizarre science of eugenics, and more recently the anti-vaccine crusade, comes the confession from a left-liberal scientist that he is responsible for an anti-science smear campaign of an organization that he disagrees with in regards to global warming.

The galactic-sized irony regarding this entire climate change science fiasco is that Peter Gleick is considered by coastal elites to be an expert on science integrity. That patina of integrity has itself now been smeared by none other than Gleick. As one of his leftist, anti-science MSM collaborators now puts it:

"One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)."

As this blog and many others have documented in recent years, the global warming hysteria cause is dominated by "scientists" who constantly mislead and deceive the public and policymakers. Like the Climategate outcome, the Fakegate's fabrication and conspiracy of the left's "science" will hopefully be another cleansing episode that reduces the high fever of corruption that permeates taxpayer funded science in big academia and big government.

Previous liberal-left, progressive science and climate-deceit postings.

Picture (sans loser hand) source of Peter Gleick

Alarmist AGW Snowfall Prediction Wrong: Research Reveals Snowfall Not Impacted By Global Warming

The professional green CAGW alarmists predicted that global warming would bring climate change to Sierra Mtns. in the form of decreased snowfall levels - empirical evidence proves prediction to be without merit

(click on image to enlarge)

Read here. Another 'Big Green' climate change prediction. Another climate change prediction fail.

As the adjacent chart shows, the snowfall trend for the California Sierra region has not been impacted by human CO2 emissions or the modern global warming since the late 1800's.

"The analysis of snowfall data from as far back as 1878 found no long-term trend in how much snow falls in the state, especially in the critical western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains...There isn’t a trend significantly different from zero for the whole period,...just the past 50 years and there is no trend over this recent stretch either."..."Monthly snowfall totals from over 500 stations in California, some of which date back to 1878, are examined. Most data were accessed through the NOAA archive...For those regions characterized by consistent monitoring and with the most robust statistical reproducibility, we find no statistically significant trends in their periods-of-record (up to 133 years) nor in the most recent 50 years. This result encompasses the main snowfall region of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains." [John R. Christy 2012: Journal of Hydrometeorology]

Previous severe-weather postings and charts; previous peer-reviewed and failed-prediction postings.

Unequivocal & Irrefutable Empirical Research: No Increase In Hurricane Landfall - IPCC's AGW Prediction Fails Test

The IPCC & Climategate scientist Kenneth Trenberth long predicted that anthropogenic global warming would increase tropical cyclone landfalls - their prediction was wrong

Read here. The AGW alarmist scientists of the IPCC (including the world's most incompetent climate scientist) have for many years predicted that CO2-induced global warming would cause a severe increase in tropical cyclone frequency and strength. These ferocious storms would thus result in wreaking havoc on coastal areas worldwide, unless human CO2 emission growth was stopped - per the IPCC.

As with almost every single climate change catastrophic prediction that the IPCC has fantasized about, empirical research proves the increased cyclone / hurricane landfall prediction to be meritless. The actual scientific evidence is both unequivocal and irrefutable: the modern global warming has not produced a greater number of destructive tropical cyclones making landfall.  (click on above peer reviewed chart to enlarge - evidence of failed prediction)

"Using currently available historical TC best-track records, we have constructed a global database focused on hurricane-force strength landfalls. Our analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs of minor or major hurricane strength. This evidence provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls..." [Jessica Weinkle, Ryan Maue and Roger Pielke, Jr. 2012: Journal of Climate]

Previous hurricane-cyclone, failed-prediction, severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings. Severe weather charts.

Scientists Determine Modern Greenland Glacier Retreat Not Unique, Part of Natural Melt Cycle

Climate change alarmists said melting of Greenland's glaciers was solely due to CO2-based global warming - scientists now say that "consensus" is wrong

(click to enlarge image)

Read here. It is a well established fact that tax-payer funded, professional alarmists blame any known worldly change/condition on anthropogenic global warming. This has certainly been true regarding the global retreat of glaciers since the Little Ice Age end.

Based on the latest research though, scientists are now concluding that natural oscillations and cycles play a much greater role in glacier retreat/melt and advancement. In fact, new research has determined that Greenland's Helheim Glacier had a similarly very high natural melt during the 1930's versus the more recent melt that alarmists solely (wrongly) blame human CO2 emissions for.

"...the researchers [Andresen et al] were able to construct a continuous history going back 120 years. By studying the debris and silt deposited in the fjord, estimations can be made about the rate of iceberg calving, and hence ice loss from the flowing ice of the glacier...the researchers were able to create a history of ice loss for Helheim [Glacier]...Two pronounced calving maxima are observed: one during the past 10 years, the other in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The long-term calving increase is probably due to a shift from the Little Ice Age conditions, which were characterized by low air temperatures and strong polar-water influence..."Our analysis indicates that the recent increase in calving activity observed at Helheim Glacier is not unique but that a similarly large event occurred in the late 1930s/early 1940s. These two episodes occurred at times when the temperature of the Atlantic-water source was high (positive/warm Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation phase) and the polar-water export was at a record low (even if fluctuating)."..."“Our study provides evidence that Helheim Glacier responds to changes in [natural] atmosphere–ocean variability on timescales as short as a few years.”" [Camilla S. Andresen, Fiammetta Straneo, Mads Hvid Ribergaard, Anders A. Bjørk, Thorbjørn J. Andersen, Antoon Kuijpers, Niels Nørgaard-Pedersen, Kurt H. Kjær, Frands Schjøth, Kaarina Weckström, Andreas P. Ahlstrøm 2012: Nature Geoscience]

Previous peer-reviewed and glacier/ice sheet postings. Above Mapquest and Google image sources.

Summer Arctic Sea Ice Melt Provokes Significant Negative Climate Feedback: Antarctica Sea Temp Decline

Global warming theorists now claim that Arctic sea ice melt causes colder and snowier winters - the empirical evidence indicates that it must also cause colder oceans, a definite AGW negative feedback

(click on images to enlarge)

These Bob Tisdale charts of ocean temperatures through January 2012 are most enlightening. To summarize the data plotted on the charts, ocean temperatures, as represented by the Southern, South Pacific and global measurements, clearly show a decline since the 1998 El Niño event. The Southern Ocean (aka the Antarctica Ocean) has experienced a very significant decline in temperature since the early 2000's.

Sooo...per the logic of the typical global warming alarmist, the Arctic sea ice melt from human CO2 emissions does the following, from one Polar region to its geographic opposite:

• Increased CO2 ===> increases Arctic warming ===> increases Arctic sea ice melt ===> decreases solar albedo ===> increases summer temperatures ===> decreases winter temperatures ===> increases snow ===> decreases global ocean temperatures ===> decreases Antarctica Ocean temperatures ===> causes global cooling

In essence, the tortured logic of the ever-changing alarmist climate change theories literally leads one to conclude that global cooling weather events are the natural negative feedback to AGW.

Of course, no IPCC climate change report (so far) has remotely stated the above. But the actual climate empirical evidence (ie, non-warming world, lower ocean temps) and cold weather events has now forced CO2-centric global warming alarmists into a pretzeled logic that ultimately supports the overall negative feedbacks of global climate as understood by CAGW-skeptics, not the positive feedbacks pushed by the IPCC.

Previous positive-negative feedback postings. Modern, regional and historical temperature charts.

Predicted Increase In Severe Windstorms From Global Warming Has Not Happened, New Research Shows

As the majority of empirical-based scientists are now discovering, the IPCC's global warming catastrophic predictions have been terribly wrong - the failed prediction of an increase of severe windstorms is newest example

Read here. The IPCC, its climate models and its Climategate scientists have become infamous for flat-out, dreadful, incorrect climate predictions. A prominent prediction of an increase in severe weather due to global warming (ie, climate change) was made long ago, yet all the empirical research keeps confirming the lack of an increase. (click on image for more info)

The latest research on severe windstorms in the U.S. is another example of the incompetence of the IPCC's climate models and its "consensus experts."

"The author notes that high winds - excluding those associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, blizzards and heavy rainstorms - are one of the United States' leading types of damage-producing storms. These straight-line windstorms, as they are called, produce annual U.S. property and crop losses...Changnon describes how a number of adjustments to loss data of the past needed to be made "to calculate a revised monetary loss value for each catastrophe so as to make it comparable to current year values, 2006 in this study." And when these adjustments were made, he reports that the 55-year time trend "was not up or down."...study's finding that "the national temporal distribution of catastrophic windstorms during 1952-2006 has a flat trend,"..." [Stanley Changnon,  2011: Natural Hazards]

Previous severe-weather, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Severe weather charts.

Latest Research Shatters Urban Myth of "Unprecedented" Modern Warming: The 'Hockey Stick' Refuted

Climate 'urban myths' have plagued policymakers and the public for years - fortunately Michael Mann's "unprecedented" modern global warming myth is finally dying an empirical-death

(click on image to enlarge)

Read here. Urban myths of Hollywood celebrities, the mainstream press and coastal elites are often foisted on the public and policymakers as "consensus" science.

A recent example was the left/liberal urban legend that vaccines cause autism, which a scientist-fraud perpetrated. (As researchers have amazingly documented, scientific fraud is rampant.)

The classic climate "science" urban myth is that 20th century global warming was "unprecedented" when in fact empirical study after study proves that myth to be without scientific merit. And now a new study demolishes that myth conclusively - will the discredited 'hockey stick' caricature of past temperatures now finally die?

"Working with the GISP2 ice core from the Summit region of central Greenland, Kobashi et al. reconstructed Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4000 years with a method that utilizes nitrogen and argon isotopic ratios..."The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was −30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long-term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is −29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years..."" [Takuro Kobashi, Kenji Kawamura, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean-Marc Barnola, Toshiyuki Nakaegawa, Bo M. Vinther, Sigfús J. Johnsen, Jason E. Box 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Conclusions:

• Arctic Greenland was warmer than modern warming during the Bronze, Roman and Medieval periods - ergo, modern warming not unprecedented
• Despite massive industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions, modern warming is easily within natural climate variation
• Scientists claiming that modern warming is "unprecedented" are simply lying (or, amazingly ignorant of the plethora of actual empirical evidence)

Additional peer-reviewed postings. Historical, modern and fabricated-fake temperature charts. Source of above image.

Just Released NOAA Data Shows January Temperatures Cooling At -17.3°F/Century Rate; U.S. At -4.1°F/Century Rate

Despite a warm 2012 January in the U.S., overall January temperatures over the last 15 years have fallen off a cliff - falling at a minus seventeen degrees per century rate

For many in the U.S., this past January was a pleasant weather experience as the recent years' frigid winter temperatures took residence in other parts of the world. Here's a typical winter weather story that other geographical regions have experienced:

"Germany’s no. 1 daily Bild reports on the Killer Cold now paralyzing Europe and Asia, and calls it the worst in 25 years. The cold has hit Eastern Europe especially hard, with temperatures plummeting to -30°C throughout the Ukraine and Poland. So far the cold has claimed 139 lives, with 3 in Germany...In Serbia, over 6 feet of snow have fallen over the last few weeks. In Turkey heavy snows have have blanketed much of the country...new cold record had been set in Finland: minus 39°C was recorded in Northern Finland....In the Urals and Siberia, the temperature fell to -40C while in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, a forecaster told Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency the wind-chill factor meant the real temperature was down to -52C..."

Fortunately, the continental U.S. was spared that awful winter weather this January. But as the above chart shows, our warm January did not do too much to change the long-term cooling that the month of January has brought us  - that 'January month' cooling trend (blue arrow) is still in a spectacular double-digit per century rate decline.

When all months are included (not just January), the U.S. has experienced a cooling trend contrary to all "consensus" CO2-based climate predictions; this second chart shows the moving 12-month period over the last 15 years (180 months) through January 2012.

The 15-year period ending in January was the 5th warmest in the past 15 years; for all January months on record, it was  the 4th warmest since 1895.

Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Charts from NOAA / NCDC site. (click on charts to enlarge)

Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.

New Study: Predicted CO2 Emissions From Warming of Peat Regions Is Wrong - From Positive To Negative Feedback

IPCC alarmists and climate models predicted that global warming of peatlands would initiate a positive feedback resulting in the increase of CO2 emissions - conclusive research finds the polar-opposite

Read here. Like almost every single predicted positive feedback by the IPCC's Climategate scientists and models, the actual empirical evidence finds that nature abhors positive feedbacks. The warming of peatland (peat bogs) is no different.

[Note: Click on the image, then read the 2nd paragraph to see an example of how the failed climate science predictions of the IPCC corrupts common knowledge.]

Objective, non-activist scientists researched the IPCC peatland prediction and discovered that instead of being a positive feedback, peat regions would be a negative feedback during warming climates.

"Global warming is often predicted to lead to the releasing to the atmosphere of long-sequestered carbon in earth's peatlands, possibly freeing enough of it at a sufficiently rapid rate to rival CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources, with the end result of this scenario being a strong positive feedback to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, which climate alarmists contend will lead to further warming of the planet...employed multi-proxy data derived from a 1073-cm sediment core they extracted in March of 2007 from Tannersville Bog...in order to document the Bog's historical peat accumulation pattern and rate, as well as climate variations experienced by this "temperate tree-covered poor fen"...say their study implies that "northern peatlands can continue to serve as carbon sinks under a warmer and wetter climate, providing a negative feedback to climate warming," which is the exact polar-opposite of what has historically been claimed by the world's climate alarmists." [Shanshan Cai, Zicheng Yu 2011: Quaternary Research]

Previous positive-feedback, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

The Great WSJ Climate Debate: Alarmist Scientists Reveal The Incredible Lameness of Their Global Warming Science

The global warming and climate change debate waging in the pages of the WSJ and blogs exposes public to embarrassing "consensus" climate science failures

(click on images to enlarge) 

This past week has seen a war of words breakout in the WSJ pages (here and here) between non-alarmists and alarmists. Although nearly 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age and that humans do have an influence on climate, the public (via the WSJ) has now been witness to the unbelievably lame argument made by global warming alarmist scientists.

As "97%" of the world populace knows, the IPCC has falsely prophesied for the last two decades that human CO2 emissions are causing "runaway" warming that is resulting in a climate "tipping point." As the above two charts clearly indicate, the IPCC climate model prediction of runaway warming has been immensely wrong.

The leftmost chart tracks HadCRUT annual global temperatures (light purple) versus the IPCC's climate model predictions. The blue, red and green curves are temperature projections if CO2 emissions continued "as is" and the orange curve is if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. (Light purple dotted line is anticipated anomaly by 2025 per the HadCRUT linear trend.)

Obviously, the observed global temperatures are robustly below all the climate model scenarios anticipated, even with actual CO2 emissions continuing their "business-as-usual" growth.

The second chart (rightmost) plots absolute annual global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 30 years, since January 1, 1982. The IPCC models and alarmists envision that global temperatures could exceed 20°C by year 2100 due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels - this chart puts the last 30 years in that alarmist context.

Per the linear trend of the last 30 years (1.58°C/century), global temperatures are on a path to reach 15.75°C by 2100, a maximum that is a fraction of the IPCC's much publicized catastrophic predictions. The blue curve is the 5-year average of annual temperature change - this is the actual outcome versus the scary "runaway," "tipping point" global warming that all alarmist scientists believed was occurring during the recent "warmest" decades.

Speaking of "warmest," this is now the go-to-scary-word of alarmist "consensus" scientists. Literally, they have been forced to use this lame adjective because of the embarrassing empirical evidence. In essence, "warmest" (take your pick - day, month, quarter, year and decade) replaces words such as "accelerating," "rapid" and "runaway" warming, which are demonstrably false.

Indeed, the lameness of the underlying AGW "science" has become palpable.

Conclusion:

1. The catastrophic (CAGW) theory is empirically a very lame theory
2. Global warming is not rapid, accelerating or runaway

• Since 1850 the per century linear trend is +0.43°C (+0.34°C by 2100AD)
• Last 30 years, the per century linear trend is +1.58°C (+1.40°C by 2100AD)
• Last 15 years, the per century linear trend is +0.34°C (+0.29°C by 2100AD)
• Last 10 years, the per century linear trend is -0.72°C (-0.63°C by year 2100AD)

Note: Linear trends are not predictions; temperature data & CO2 data

Climate Model Believer Kevin Trenberth: New Research Proves His Precipitation Predictions Robustly Bad

The travesty of Kevin Trenberth's climate predictions is only challenged by those of climate modeler James Hansen - they are both consistently wrong

Read here, image source here.

Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC climate "scientist", is widely known for both his aggressive smearing of his science critics and his dog-awful climate predictions.

Like a beggar-person addicted to alcohol, Trenberth seems to say and predict any CAGW outcomes to assure a continual flow of government research monies, including the prediction that global warming will cause frequent extreme precipitation events. Like many of his global warming climate predictions, he was wrong.

Climate researchers Dravitzki and McGregor analyzed precipitation events for the northern region of New Zealand and could find no evidence of what-in-the-hell Trenberth was talking about - another major prediction fail per the peer reviewed empirical data.

"Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region...developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values..."since 1900 there have been no significant variations in the total annual precipitation nor in the occurrence or magnitude of extreme precipitation events," and they say that these events "...write that "the consistency of the precipitation totals suggests that the current economically important water supply is secure within the region." And we would add that their finding of no evidence for the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC over a 107-year period -- when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that were unprecedented over the past millennium or more - suggests that the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC are not what they are cracked up to be..." [Stacey Dravitzki, James McGregor 2011: International Journal of Climatology]

Previous severe-weather, prediction-failure and peer-reviewed postings. Severe weather charts.

Latest NASA Data Confirms That Global Warming Is Not Unequivocal, Not Irreversible, Not Accelerating, Not Significant

The IPCC and the typical CAGW alarmist claims all sorts of magical powers for CO2-induced global warming - per the data NASA / GISS data though, none are true

The above blinking chart (created here) shows four different short-term linear trends (five years ending 1998, 2003, 2007 & 2011) for NASA/GISS surface temperatures. The latest 5-year trend ending 2011 is +0.36°C per century rate.

The long-term trend (+0.60°C per century rate) since 1880 is higher than 5-yr period ending 2011.

Conclusions:

• The current 5-year trend is below the long-term trend
• There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been moderately negative (cooling rate)
• There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been highly positive (warming rate)
• Atmospheric CO2 levels keep increasing across every short-term period at approximately the same per century rate
• Atmospheric CO2 does not cause global temperatures to be: unequivocal, irreversible, accelerating or significantly warming on a permanent basis
• Recent global warming could convert to global cooling very quickly (in a span of a few years) regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels
• Robust global warming (cooling) is not "incontrovertible"

Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.

Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Data for Excel charts here and here