If the current modern global cooling continues, winters in the Northern Hemisphere and summers in the Southern Hemispere could be colder - human CO2 emissions may actually be irrelevant
(click on images to enlarge)
From 1960 through 2011, over 1 trillion tons of CO2 have been emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels. The alarmist global warming theory requires that all those emissions still remain in the atmosphere - per the AGW alarmists, emissions will stay resident in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.
But as the empirical evidence mounts, those trillions of tons of emissions are having a very small impact on global temperatures - so small, many of the world's best scientists are now questioning the relevancy of human CO2 on the world's climate. The previous modern warming has convincingly morphed into modern global cooling.
The top left chart is a plot of CO2 levels versus global temperatures for December, January and February. These months are typically the coldest for the Northern Hemisphere's winter and warmest for the Southern Hemisphere's summer. As the chart reveals, the last 15 years have seen significant cooling for these three months - including 1998, the trend is a minus 1.3 degrees/century.
The chart on the right, plots the Dec-Jan-Feb temperatures from 1960. The blue shaded areas represent the cooling periods that sandwich the modern warming that ended in 1998 with a kaboom - the Super El Niño of 1998.
Clearly, the massive 1 trillion+ tons of CO2 emissions are not making global temperatures "accelerate" prior to 1977, nor for the post-1998 period.
Conclusions: Modern cooling has prevailed during the December, January and February months since 1998; vast human CO2 emissions are not producing a global warming climate; and, the current cooling phase could switch to warming, or remain as is, depending on natural climatic fluctuations, regardless of CO2.
Climate alarmist claims that coral will suffer long-term harm due to lower pH levels proven wrong by new study - ocean "acidifcation" fears debunked, robustly
Read here. With the failed global warming alarmism proving to be non-sustainable due to lower global temperatures, alarmists made ocean "acidification" their next predicted calamity to cause world collapse.
Scientists decided to research and analyze the non-scientific acidification claims by conducting experiments on cold water coral, which is considered to be most susceptible to lower pH levels. Much like the left's / liberal's embrace of fraudulent anti-vaccine fears, the researchers found the irrational acidification fears to be misplaced also.
"Ocean acidification, often termed ‘the evil twin of global warming’, is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity dissolves into the oceans. Presently, the ocean takes up about 25% of man-made CO2, which has led to a decrease in seawater pH of 0.1 units since 1800. By 2100, surface ocean pH values can easily drop by another 0.3–0.4 units...the impacts it may have on marine organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. A major gap in our understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification on life in the sea is the potential of marine organisms to acclimate and adapt to increasing seawater acidity"..."they found was that in an experiment that lasted only 8 days, that the growth rate of the coral was slowed down by the dissolution of extra CO2 into the aquarium water...In a second experiment in which the coral specimens were exposed to lower pH levels for 178 days, the growth rate did not decline, and in fact, even appeared to increase under the lower pH (more acid) conditions...Instead, growth rate, which was comparable to that of the control treatment in the short-term experiment, stayed high at elevated CO2 levels." [Armin U., Ulf Riebesell 2012: Global Change Biology]
Conclusions: #1 Ocean acidification fears debunked; #2 species like coral may adversely be affected in the short-term but become acclimated over the long-term; and #3 coral and other ocean species have existed and prospered in seas with lower pH levels
Weather models were the genesis for today's under-performing climate models that keep predicting last decade's bad predictions about global warming - it's become GIGO built upon GIGO producing worthless model predictions
(click on image to enlarge)
H/T here. This adjacent U.S. weather forecast for the winter of 2011-2012 is additional evidence that computer model simulations are worthless.
They essentially become worthless as a predictive tool once the time-frame expands beyond 7 to 10 days.
(Pssst...Heather, find a new gig...the models are going to make you look stupid.)
What do you know about global warming? In the case of the IPCC, maybe you know a lot more - IPCC finally admits that paving over tropical forests is a major factor in climate change
Read here. Most people, having even an ounce of common sense, would correctly conclude that paving over agricultural lands with asphalt or that destroying forests to plant bio-fuel crops would have a major influence on temperatures. Amazingly, for the past 20 years, the IPCC has claimed that changes in such 'land-use' had little impact.
The IPCC and its closely controlled peer review journals have now admitted that land-use changes do indeed have a major impact on climate change and local/regional and even global temperatures. The IPCC will now include land-use changes as a major forcing in its "climate bible" assessments.
Honestly, is it any wonder the IPCC's climate models have been abysmally bad over the last 20 years at predicting global temperatures when such an obviously idiotic failure is finally admitted to?
"There is an article in the March 15 2012 issue of Nature that finally elevates land use change to its proper level as a first order climate forcing. While the article still does not recognize that land conversion, particularly in the low latitudes but also in the boreal forest regions continues and, therefore, will add further to how humans are altering the climate, it is an important step for the IPCC to finally make. In 1995 I resigned from the IPCC after efforts to get them to mention this issue were rebuffed..."
What do you know about global warming? The IPCC and its impact on tropical deforestation
Because the IPCC failed to correctly recognize, identify and publicly state that land-use changes were a primary driver of climate change and temperatures, wealthy individuals like George Soros and Richard Branson have been provided incentives to trash natural forested habitats, to be replaced with money producing bio-fuel agriculture plots (e.g., palm plantations). Now that the IPCC has belatedly recognized the importance of land-use changes on climate, possibly the world's wealthy elites will no longer be able to invest in major natural habitat changing projects.
The IPCC's gold-standard dataset, HadCRUT, just announced the coldest February in the last 18 years - is this the end of modern global cooling?
(click on images to enlarge)
While many Americans welcomed a balmy-like February winter, this minor regional warming in some parts of the U.S. was overwhelmed by an otherwise large global cooling. Last time February global temperatures were colder than February 2012 was in 1994 - 18 years prior.
If this February cooling trend since 1994 continues, by 2100 February temperatures will be 0.7 degrees (C) cooler.
Modern global cooling for all months over the last 10 years through February has a more prominent per century trend of minus 1.1 degrees (C) (or a minus 0.95 degrees by 2100). It has now become a unanimous consensus that the 80's and 90's warming span turned into a cooling (be it slight) phase over the last 10 years.
Back to February. By examining past February temperatures since 1850 in more detail, it becomes clear that the HadCRUT dataset does not provide any empirical evidence of accelerated warming of February temperatures - temperature change is not constantly increasing, nor even positive every year for that matter.
Instead, as the top chart reveals, temperature change from one February to the next follows a consistent pattern of negative and positive changes, going back and forth, from 1850 to present day.
Now look closer at the chart (click to enlarge). That purple line is the linear trend of February temperature changes - it's flat, indicating that global February temperatures are not unequivocally warming. Look at the red curve - that's the 30-year simple average of February temperature change.
Note how the red curve has remained within a narrow volatility band ever since 1880 and all the way through February 2012. Again, clearly global February temperatures are not exhibiting the long-predicted accelerating temperature change regime that was going to make winters disappear in the Northern Hemisphere.
Interesting to note, as CO2 levels kept up their constant growth (black dots), when were the biggest positive and negative changes in February temperatures over the last 50 years? Way back in 1973 and 1974 (back-to-back) when the globe was experiencing its previous global cooling phase, not during the warming of the 80's and 90's.
And, what would the climate change statistics look like if there were actually accelerating temperature increases? The adjacent chart shows that: the last 10 years of actual February temperature change were altered to artificially increase by +0.25 degree every February. That level of accelerated change caused the purple trend line to slope up, and caused the red 30-year average curve to break out of its narrow band of variation, significantly.
Conclusions: HadCRUT global, the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, indicates that the world has experienced a modern global cooling trend over the past 10 years; in addition, the month of February has experienced a cooling trend since February of 1994; the recent past cooling does not mean either future regional and/or global warming will not happen; the "powerful" greenhouse gas, CO2, turns out not to be very powerful ('lame' comes to mind); and, zero of the multi-billion dollar "expert" climate models predicted this modern global cooling period.
For additional temperature charts, visit these 'C3' pages: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts - hey, if you only look at the above charts you'll be accused of 'cherry picking' by someone!
Note: February 2012 tied February 2008 as the coldest February since 1994.
Accelerating sea levels swamping the world's coastal regions is the "bread & butter" fear of global warmista scientists - tide gauge station empirical evidence however does not support the CAGW predictions (hysteria)
Read here. Australians are naturally concerned with protecting their coastal areas from rising sea levels due to CO2-induced global warming (is it even happening?). Over recent years, a collection of Australia's scientists, politicians, bureaucrats and journalists have been spreading the fear of rising tides swamping Australia. But are the fears justified?
x
Global & Australian tide gauge station data
Utilizing data from the world's tide gauges, a new peer reviewed study debunks the myth that Australia needs to spend billions to protect its shoreline from sea inundation.
"The government of Australia is supporting the statement that sea levels are rising faster than ever before as a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Consequent to this, low-lying coastal areas, where the majority of Australians are concentrated, have been declared at risk of sea level inundations...However, long term tide gauges, recording sea levels worldwide, as well as along the coastline of Australia, and within the bay of Sydney, do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises at present time...Long term recording tide gauges show weak sea level rises and no acceleration." [Alberto Boretti 2012: Coastal Engineering]
The IPCC and Michael Mann claimed that modern Antarctica climate change is "unprecedented' - new polar research demolishes that myth
Read here. Without doing any scientific field research, the IPCC and Climategate's Michael Mann chose to promulgate a non-scientific position that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age were only local European phenomena. Their political agenda was to establish the myth that Antarctica climate change was unaffected by the MWP and the LIA.
That myth is no longer sustainable.
The team of Lu et al. published new research conclusively proving that the Antarctica continent also experienced both the MWP and LIA. In essence, the climate of previous centuries is similar to the climate Antarctica now has (as depicted in the adjacent image) - the modern South Pole climate is not "unprecedented."
"At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon...However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn’t true – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters...The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it...‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’...They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals." [Zunli Lu, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, Hilary Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Richard D. Pancost, Samuel Shaw, Alistair Lennie, Julia Wellner, John B. Anderson 2012: Earth and Planetary Science Letters]
Conclusion: Modern Antarctica climate change is not unusual; is likely to have nothing to do with CO2 emissions; and similar climate variation happened in the past.
The failed climate models of the IPCC and NASA have revealed the terminal weakness of the AGW hypothesis - but new research and models are coming online that better explain global warming and climate change
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here and here. The impressive success of the harmonic astronomical climate model (left chart) is in the realm of spectacular when compared to the robust, abysmal performance of the IPCC's (middle chart) and NASA's (right chart) traditional CO2-based climate models. The failure of the CO2-centric models is due in large part to their inability to reproduce the known decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that are part and parcel to the world's climate.
The significant failure of the IPCC / NASA climate models, and the AGW hypothesis they are derived from, is captured in its entire absurdity here. Literally, the avid proponents of the failed CO2-driven AGW hypothesis first admit to there being essentially zero warming over the last 10 years, and then try to rationalize the disappearance of warming with a diversity of speculations other than the obvious - that the current IPCC and NASA climate theory is bankrupt.
Below are excerpts that reveal the collective, "consensus" befuddlement of Climategate scientists towards global warming (or lack thereof):
John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.
Robert Kaufman, climate scientist: "...released a modeling study suggesting that the hiatus in warming could be due entirely to El Niño and increased sulfates from China’s coal burning."
Martin Wild, climate scientist: "During the 1980s and ’90s, the rapid decline of air pollution in the United States and Europe dominated the world’s aerosol trends. While those emissions have continued to decline in the West, returns, from a brightening standpoint, ...“It’s not an obvious overall trend anymore,”..."
Susan Solomon, climate scientist: "“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” ...Solomon had shown that between 2000 and 2009, the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere declined by about 10 percent. This decline, caused either by natural variability — perhaps related to El Niño — or as a [negative] feedback to climate change, likely countered 25 percent of the warming that would have been caused by rising greenhouse gases..."
Kenneth Trenberth, climate scientist: "Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,...they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down."
James Hansen, climate scientist: "All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses....that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,...“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ....it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed."
Graeme Stephens, climate scientist: "It suggests there isn’t a missing energy. Trenberth disagrees with this analysis, and it’s likely to be a question of ongoing debate."
Judith Lean, climate scientist: "The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star...Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” According to Lean, the combination of multiple La Niñas and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that’s needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases."
Ben Santer, climate scientist: “All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming,”..."The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things. You can’t do that without systematic modeling and experimentation. I would hope someone will do that.”...“Even if you have the hypothetical perfect model, if you leave out the wrong forcings, you will get the wrong answer.”
John Daniel, climate scientist: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
Conclusion: The failed climate models (that "scientists" from the IPCC and NASA livelihoods are dependent on) are based on a discredited CO2 hypothesis that is unable to explain the global climate's fluctuations. Newer models based on natural causations, be they of cosmic and/or earthly origin, are better able to explain global climate change, including decadal and multi-decadal temperature variation.
Latest global temperature info refutes the extraordinary 'cherry picking' of Tom Yulsman, well known CAGW climate model cultist advocate - the doomsday kool-aid "science" of fanatics green-disoriented individuals
(click on each image to enlarge)
To be honest, I've been waiting for almost three years to write about this article penned by Tom Yulsman, but never mentioned it until now. His recent, idiotic challenging article about 'cherry picking' by skeptics just flat-out exhibits the typical brain-gyrating hypocrisy mental process of your standard cult fanatic warmista, and then I got thinking about that old article.
"...I [Tom Yulsman] drank the cap-and-trade Kool-Aid, spiked by a generous portion of climate modeling."
No shit, Sherlock. Tom Yulsman fancies himself an environmental journalist, but in reality, he's a hack propagandist advocate for the climate doomsday cult tribe located in his region of Colorado. An propagandist advocate for a cargo cult unique style of climate-science where Kool-Aid appears to be the chosen elixir.
In his most recent article, he chooses to push the blatant propaganda misunderstanding that skeptics only 'cherry pick' their climate data, but then proceeds, in literal black and white, to demonstrate his superior skills as the ultimate 'cherry picking' CAGW cultist tribe spokesperson. Let's review:
Tom Yulsman, doomsday cultist advocate and cherry picking expert
Synopsis: Yulsman uses the first three weeks of March, 2012 as evidence that humans are causing global warming - "But over the very long run, the picture has been pretty clear: Humans are winning — as this March’s extraordinary weather suggests"...alrighty then, Tom.
First, talk about 'cherry picking'. This cultist advocate basis his whole article on a portion of a single freaking month
Second, the early March warmth was primarily located in certain regional areas of the U.S., not a global phenomenon - more convenient 'cherry picking'
Third, as the NASA global atmosphere temperature chart #1 shows, March through the 26th has not exhibited global temperatures out of the ordinary.
Fourth, as the HadCRUT global temperature charts #2-5 reveal, global warming has been modest, to non-existent over the last 30 years, depending on the given time span examined, despite the obvious 30-year, non-stop growth of CO2 levels.
Fifth, Yulsman exposes his amazing lack of climate science knowledge (cultist ignorance?) when he wonders about the following: "Watts up with the 17-year period." It's a 'you've-got-to-be-kidding' moment - this "science" journalist isn't even aware that a major CAGW climate modeler published a study in 2011 claiming that temperature benchmarks should be using 17 years as the measurement period. (Psssst...Tom, try googling "climate +17-years"...second item on first page of search. You're welcome. Say hello to Ben S. for me. Thanks.)
Sixth, he 'cherry picks' quotes from Jeff Masters, a known internet weather crackpot, who expounds on the March warming in Michigan, yet actual NOAA U.S. temperature data has March 1910 as warmer and that goes unmentioned.
Seventh, he 'cherry picks' a single study about the 2003 European heat wave that claims that event was a result of human factors, yet ignores all the other studies suggesting such heat waves are natural phenomenons.
Eighth, I'm not making this up, Yulsman 'cherry picks' a single, "renowned," cartoon video as his scientific evidence that humans are to blame for global warming - gee, I wonder if instead this video would help better explain AGW to Tom's erudite readers:
xxxxx
Ninth, knowing full well that the CAGW cultists scientists can't explain the lack of recent global warming over the last 15 years, Tom chooses to 'cherry pick' a single study that speculates that all the previous predicted warming from the climate models is really disappearing into the deep oceans. However, as our cult propagandist advocate fails to mention, all the empirical scientific evidence disproves that AGW alarmist speculation.
Tenth, going back to those 'cherry picked' first 3-weeks of March, 'Kool-Aid' Tom just happens to forget to speak of the previous 52-week period - and for good reason. Obviously, as the chart on the right shows, the CAGW fanatics faithful are notoriously reluctant to talk about those temperatures, which has the world monstrously cooling at a minus 18.3 degrees by 2100.
Note: Readers, please remember that linear trend figures used in the charts are not predictions! Also, the charts' blue curves are 2nd order polynomial trend fits as calculated by Excel.
Conclusion:Tom Yulsman, the 'cherry picking' expert and climate doomsday cultist advocate, reminds me of Harold Camping and all the other crazies eccentrics. In my mind's-eye, Tom even looks like Harold - yikes!
A plethora of temperature charts that CAGW cult tribe 'cherry pickers' always avoid: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts, and of course, an extensive list of severe weather events prior to the 1980's that the cultists always seem to forget about.
p.s. Update: Rest assured, image #6 above is not really Tom Yulsman! He is infinitely better looking and younger. And more than 'robustly' likely, he is a great guy; someone to go out have an after work beverage with and shoot the skeptics shit with - just don't let him 'cherry pick' the Kool-Aid drinks. :-)
An empirical analysis of the latest CRUTEM4 dataset reveals that climate modeling, as used by the IPCC and other climate research agencies, have predictive capabilities measured as being worthless
(click image to enlarge) Read here. Bob Tisdale examines the new CRUTEM4 dataset (part of the new HadCRUT4 dataset) versus the predictions of the IPCC's climate modeling "science." As previous analyses have established, the major climate research climate models are incapable of providing accurate (or even adequate) predictions of future climate conditions.
Why is climate modeling worthless as a prediction tool?
There are multiple reasons, but in a nutshell:
1. Climate modelers, not being evidence-based scientists, constructed models per the IPCC politicized CO2-based agenda
2. Climate modelers, per the above #1 reason, constructed models to minimize the influence of natural climate oscillations and cycles
3. Climate modelers constantly tweak their models with numerous "adjustments" to force models to match observed temperature behavior over more recent decades
4. When, climate modelers perform their "tweaks" for modern era temperatures, the climate models are no longer able to accurately predict ('hindcast') past temperature behavior
5. If climate models were "adjusted" to perform better past temperature hindcasting, then the climate models would fail to match recent temperature behavior (it's the nature of the climate modle beast).
As the adjacent charts from Bob Tisdale's analysis shows, the state-of-the-art IPCC climate model predictions (red curves/lines) fail completely to match the observed historical dataset (blue curves/lines).
"...compares the models to the global CRUTEM4 data during the early warming period of 1917 to 1938. The observed rate at which global land surface temperatures warmed is almost 5 times faster than simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. 5 times faster....According to the CMIP3 multi-model mean, land surface temperatures should have warmed at a rate of 0.043 deg C per decade from 1938 to 1976, but according to the CRUTEM4 data, global land surface temperature anomalies cooled at a rate of -0.05 deg C per decade..."
Conclusion: After billions of dollars expended on climate modeling (and the ungodly huge amount of wasted science man-hours), the latest evidence sadly confirms that IPCC climate models' predictions remain worthless.
To get an idea of the immense expenditures of money and time spent on climate modelers play toys, watch this NASA video:
Read here. It has become a common practice among those advocating government control of CO2 emissions and higher energy prices that all modern extreme weather events are a result of global warming. These claims have taken on the characteristics of urban myths believed by those who have high disdain for empirical evidence.
Although there is ample scientific evidence that global warming has been non-existent over the past 10 years and that extreme weather events happened with alarming frequency prior to the modern era, a new peer reviewed study out of China shatters the urban legend that global warming causes more frequent and larger snowstorms.
Research on extreme weather events:
After the $21 billion snowstorm disaster experienced in China during 2008, Chinese researchers (Hou et al.) closely examined 500 years of historical data to determine how unique this gargantuan snowstorm was.
"From 10 January to 2 February 2008..."continuous heavy snowfall occurred over Central and Southern China...causing "1.7 million people to be displaced for periods ranging between a few days to a month," and affecting "critical infrastructure including electric power grids and communication systems," while "food production, forests, wildlife and buildings all suffered heavy damage..."...the four researchers "used weather records contained in Chinese historical documents from the past 500 years to search for ESEs [extreme snow events] that were comparable in severity,...they identified 25 additional ESEs that were "comparable to the extreme snow event in 2008 in terms of snowfall days, snow cover/icing days and snow depth," and a graph of their data indicates that all of the additional ESEs occurred during periods that were colder than the past decade...noting that their results reveal, as they describe it, "what we have learned from the past," which is that this particular extreme has become much less common than it was in colder times." [Zhixin Hao, Jingyun Zheng, Quansheng Ge, Wei-Chyung Wang 2011: Climate Research]
Conclusion: The green warmists that dominate the ranks of leftists / progressives / liberals / Democrats almost completely rely on promulgating urban myths regarding climate change, global warming and extreme weather events. Fortunately for the rest of the world, the preponderance of empirical evidence and peer reviewed research does not support the myths and legends.
A year after the huge Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the AGW alarmists are suggesting man-made global warming and earthquakes are linked - first question: what global warming?
Read here. As the adjacent chart shows, any global warming that has occurred over the last 30 years has been insignificant (an absolute 9/100's of a degree insignificant - basically "zero"). And over the last 10 years, a definite cooling has taken place, not global warming, despite the obvious increase of CO2 levels from human emissions.
The suggestion that man-made global warming and earthquakes are scientifically linked is meritless due to lack of the recent "warming" empirical evidence.
As an aside, this chart is an updated version of one we did right after last year's earthquake/tsunami event. Yesterday, we received an email from a self identified man-of-the-cloth who admitted to being confused about global warming and asked us to respond to an accusation made by a green-pagan-fantasy oriented site (Yo padre, you're seriously confused, and not just about the AGW theory).
Scroll down the right side of the pagan's site and you'll find last year's 'C3' chart displayed - click on on it to read the "accusation." [Note: The "accusation" was made over a year ago.]
The proprietor of the pagan site stated that last year's chart was an accurate representation of the data but that it was "cherry-picked" - paraphrasing John McEnroe, "cherry picked," you cannot be serious?
We used the latest data available at the time (February 2011 satellite data)
We plotted six different time periods (some exhibiting cooling, others warming)
We revealed to our readers the absolute temperature change of anomalies for short, medium and long-term spans, which alarmists always fail to do
If this is "cherry-picking" in the padre's mind then God help him, so to speak.
Now, if the good padre has an open and inquisitive mind that actually goes beyond an infatuation with paganism and fantasy, he should visit the following four 'C3' pages, which represent the antithesis of cherry picking.
Literally, a 'C3' cornucopia of empirical climate science data displayed that will help the padre find answers to the never-ending climate spiritual needs of his flock:
Are modern global warming temperatures accelerating?
Are modern global warming temperatures unprecedented?
Are modern global warming temperatures unequivocal?
Conclusion: The empirical evidence does not support a link between man-made global warming and earthquakes; relying on a green-pagan site for an objective, comprehensive analysis of climate data is highly questionable, but in the case of the "Snufkin" site, at least very entertaining, interesting and excellent writing is provided.
A new peer reviewed study determines that research efforts based on tree rings are likely to be wrong due to 'big tree selection bias' - Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' highly likely to be corrupted by this bias
Read here. The majority of scientists have come to believe that Michael Mann's study that produced the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was flawed in a number of ways. A major problem with Mann's research was that it did not match the multiple empirical studies and anecdotal evidence that confirmed the extreme warmth of the Medieval Warming and the cold of the Little Ice Age.
Newly published research by Brienen et al. indicates that Mann's work with tree rings, and others, is likely to be wrong due to a 'big tree selection bias.'
"A paper published this week finds that many tree-ring proxy studies are highly biased and calls for "great caution in the interpretation of historical growth trends from tree-ring analyses." The authors find that "big tree selection bias" resulted in a fictitious "doubling in growth rates over recent decades." Consequently, tree-ring analyses claiming to link growth rates to historical temperatures would show a fictitious large 'hockey stick' increase in temperature over recent decades..."The big-tree selection bias is caused by sampling only the biggest trees in a population. As a result, slow-growing small trees are underrepresented in recent times as they did not reach the minimum sample diameter." [Roel J. W. Brienen, Emanuel Gloor, Pieter A. Zuidema 2012: Global BioGeochemical Cycles]
Conclusion: Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' portrayal of historical temperatures has already proven to be damaged from bizarre mathematical and statistical techniques used, and now the tree ring data utilized in his study is likely to be significantly biased also.
Previous postings about the bizarre science behind the 'hockey stick.'
Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.
Skeptics' views regarding catastrophic global warming have been proven correct - experts now believe that climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels
Read here. Climate skeptics (luke warmers and others) have long contended that the supercomputer climate models used by the IPCC and NASA have significantly overestimated the potential global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The majority of skeptics believe that any warming due to increased CO2 emissions will result in temperature increases of 2°C or less by year 2100. Recently, new peer reviewed studies by the experts have been published that reveals a new consensus being reached that confirms the skeptics' point of view: catastrophic global warming isn't in the cards.
New research on current climate models
"A collection of research results have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity"..."there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less)."..."Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming..."For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K..."
Conclusion: The alarmist predictions of catastrophic global warming have been incorrectly based on the exaggerated climate sensitivity programmed into the climate models of major climate research agencies, including those that the IPCC relies on.
For the global warming alarmist community, the inconvenient facts about droughts is that previous climate change produced more severe and longer lasting droughts
Read here. The historical evidence strongly supports that the severe climatic conditions of the Little Ice Age (pre-1850) produced extreme droughts that often affected Georgia and other locations of the Southeast U.S.
A new study of the U.S. Southeast confirms the known facts about droughts. Pederson et al. found that droughts during the end of the Little Ice Age were more severe and of longer duration than those of the 20th and 21st centuries. In essence, previous climate change, especially during cooler periods, produced more extreme climatic conditions in many parts of the world.
"A paper published today in Environmental Research Letters uses tree-ring proxies to reconstruct drought conditions of the American Southeast from 1665 to 2010. The authors find "The reconstruction shows that the recent droughts are not unprecedented over the last 346 years. Indeed, droughts of extended duration occurred more frequently between 1696 and 1820. Our results indicate that the era in which local and state water supply decisions were developed and the period of instrumental data upon which it is based are amongst the wettest since at least 1665." [N. Pederson, A. R. Bell, T. A. Knight, C. Leland, N. Malcomb, K. J. Anchukaitis, K. Tackett, J. Scheff, A. Brice, B. Catron, W. Blozan, J. Riddle 2012: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The empirical, inconvenient facts about droughts is that they have been found to be more frequent and more severe during cooler climate change regimes.
The Fakegate scandal provides opportunity for U.S. congressman to push common Democrat lies and the climate change hoax - the Heartland Institute challenges congressman about falsehoods
Read here. The Democrats have the unique capability to frequently spread blatant falsehoods and rumors, and for the most part, manage to get away with it.
The mainstream media loves Democrat lies, especially if the lies support their beloved climate change hoax agenda. The growing Fakegate climate science scandal is an example of such.
One of the favorite lies is the charge that fossil fuel companies are funding the climate change skeptics, even with zilch empirical evidence to back it up. The Heartland Institute decided to call out a U.S. Congressman (a Democrat) on the blatant mis-truths and rumors that he his staff published.
The inconvenient Heartland facts that tear asunder the Democrat lies and the climate change hoax:
"(A) Documents 1-7 in the list you provided appear to be copies of confidential documents produced by The Heartland Institute and stolen by the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick. The eighth document in your list, titled “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is not an authentic Heartland document or draft document. Peter Gleick claimed to have received this memo from an anonymous source, then falsely represented it as having come from The Heartland Institute.
(B) The inaccuracies of the eighth document are documented in the attached memo, titled “ An Analysis of the Forged ‘Heartland Climate Strategy’ Memo,” which was posted on The Heartland Institute’s Web site on February 27. I am not aware of any “different authentic” documents that match your description.
(C) Documents 1-7 in your list have not been revised by Heartland staff since they were stolen by Peter Gleick. Document 8, the fake memo, is not an authentic Heartland document or draft document, therefore I do not know whether or not it has been changed. I suggest you ask the Pacific Institute if they know.
Your letter repeats several false statements that appeared in the fake memo and have been circulated widely in the press. We thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight about our position on climate change."
Special Note: It's no surprise that U.S. Congressman Markey (a Democrat) has yet to call for an inquiry into the Fakegate climate scientist who admitted conducting a wire fraud incident, which just happens to be a felony.
With infamous science scandals like Fakegate and Climategate making constant headlines, the credence of an actual global warming scam is strengthened - and now, hysterical claims, such as of the modern polar warming "death spiral," are being exposed
Read here. Hysterical polar warming claims by "experts" has been pretty extraordinary over the last decade, including the idiotic sea ice "death spiral" prediction that is now being carefully retracted.
Unfortunately, the global warming scam requires a constant flow of hysterical claims, which more often than not, prove to be wrong.
A recent study by Kobashi et al. completely undermines the AGW claim that modern polar warming is unusual or "unprecedented." A key finding of their study is following:
"And, even more telling, prior to the last millennium they report "there were 72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer." In fact, they found that "during two intervals (~1300 BP and ~3360 BP) centennial average temperatures were nearly 1.0°C warmer (-28.9°C) than the present decade."" [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]
Conclusion: The hysterical polar warming claims are part and parcel to the basic propaganda of the catastrophic global warming scam. Although the globe has warmed over the last 150 years, the empirical science does not support the robust lying misinformation pushed by warmists.
The enjoyably warm February winter that many in U.S. experienced did not set a "global warming" record - February 1930 temps significantly above those of 2012
Despite a balmy February winter that many in the U.S. would consider a global warming benefit, the overall cooling trend during the last 15 years persists.
The NOAA / NCDC temperature dataset reveals that the U.S. is cooling at a -3.4°F trend per century. The chart on the left shows that trend. [BTW, a trend is not a prediction]
The 2012 February temperatures were well below those of February 1930 - almost 2.7 degrees below that winter of "climate change."
Note: The short-term "global warming" winter for the U.S. during 2012 is overwhelmed by the long-term cooling trend.
The outright evidence of climate liars and climate lies within the science, government and press continues to grow (google Fakegate), which may be symptomatic of an 'anthropogenic global warming obsessive compulsive disorder' - AGWCOD
Read here. Peer reviewed research has newly identified the 'AGWCOD' syndrome, which may help explain why global warming hysteria has been such a powerful lure within the elite circles of scientists, bureaucrats, the mainstream press, Hollywood celebrities and the wealthy.
"The main result is that...28 percent...of the patients suffer from the AGWOCD (anthropogenic global warming obsessive compulsive disorder). These patients were, among other things, checking their appliances "to reduce global warming". That's a pretty high percentage. The global warming hoax has become such a powerful component of the mental pathogenes in our environment that it is beginning to prevail in a whole major mental disease."
Clear indicators of the disorder include a fanatical belief that modern temperatures are "accelerating," are "unprecedented" and "unequivocal," all of which have proven to be empirically false. In addition, this global warming / climate change disorder requires a blind faith acceptance of climate catastrophe predictions that are known to be demonstrably false by objective science and research experts.
Indeed, this newly recognized mental illness may be the root cause of the preponderance of climate liars and climate lies that has become a global plague, which, btw, the mainstream media is at the forefront of condoning. (More evidence of why the press should not be trusted.)
The AGWCOD influence has become so bad that journalists are even publicly debating whether the public should be told the truth about climate change or continue to be told the global warming lies and misrepresentations by liars. (I am not making this up!...the mainstream press journalists actually now admit to not telling the truth about climate science and climate change.)
Conclusion: Climate liars and climate lies are the currency of the realm of elites, and unfortunately that has resulted in the public's growing mistrust in science, government and the press.
The NAS has issued a report that confirms the obvious climate science disaster: billions wasted on climate models - they still can't predict squat
(click image to enlarge)
Willis Eschenbach reviews a recent National Academy of Science report on climate change and reveals nothing new has been learned - the depressing outcome remains unchanged: billions wasted on climate models.
After decades of of government bureaucrat scientists' effort, and billions invested on massive hardware and software improvements, the IPCC, NASA and NOAA climate models still predict that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 1.5°C to a 3.0°C global temperature change.
That's the same prediction that the climate models and ancient computer technology produced back in the 80's and here's how bad that "expert" prediction is looking now.
"And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail … the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979."
Conclusion:Climate models are worthless as climate change prediction tools. Literally, billions wasted on climate models without any noteworthy prognostication benefit.
The empirical evidence continues to mount that documents the Roman and Medieval unprecedented warming - dust storms from the Aral Sea is the latest empirical evidence
Read here. The adjacent image is a classic example of the extreme environmental devastation produced by progressive / left government regime scientists. Although scientific geo-engineering has destroyed the Aral Sea, its historical evidence still provides further proof that modern global warming is not unprecedented.
The Huang et al. peer reviewed research analyzed 2000 years of dust storm residue and unequivocally determined that both Roman and Medieval minimum temperatures were higher than modern minimum temperatures for this central Asia region - a clear indication of warmer climates during earlier historical periods.
"Noting that dust storms are common features adjacent to the Aral Sea, the authors investigated the grain-size distributions of wind-blown sediments found in a core retrieved from that water body...report that the history of dust deposition in central Asia can be divided into five distinct periods on the basis of their observations: "a remarkably low deposition during AD 1-350, a moderately high value from AD 350-720, a return to a relatively low level between AD 720 and AD 1400 (including the Medieval Warm Period), an exceptionally high deposition from AD 1400 to [the] 1940s and an abnormally low value since [the] 1940s."...coincides with the Roman Warm Period, the second with the Dark Ages Cold Period, the third (as Huang et al. make a point of noting) with the Medieval Warm Period, the fourth with the Little Ice Age, and the fifth with the Current Warm Period...with low/high annual temperature anomalies corresponding to high/low dust supplied in the Aral Sea sediments, respectively...the minimum value of this inverted measure of annual temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was approximately 13% more extreme than the minimum value so far experienced during the Current Warm Period, and that the minimum value during the Roman Warm Period was fully 70% more extreme than that of the present." [Xiangtong Huang, Hedi Oberhänsli, Hans von Suchodoletz, Philippe Sorrel 2011: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Conclusion: Historical climate change, as represented by the Roman and Medieval unprecedented warming documented in central Asia, was a global phenomenon that modern climate change has yet to rival.
Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'
Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.
One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.
For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."
"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."
The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....
"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."
Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."
Climate science and consensus evidence is now moving to a position that natural climate change causes unprecedented warming (global and/or regional) - a major refutation of IPCC's denial of natural climate impacts
Read here and here. The IPCC's political agenda requires a denial dogma that is built on the concept that natural climate change is minor, thus the recent warming of the 1980's and 90's is a result of human CO2 emissions.
Of course, the lack of global warming over the last 17 years has made a shambles of the AGW hypothesis, plus new research continues to bolster the climate science thesis that natural climate change actually drives unprecedented temperature change. New research by Chen et al. confirms the power of natural climate forcings.
"...they state, in this regard, that "one of the most intriguing questions within the climate debate is if the present temperature rise is unique in the late Holocene or if there have been pre-industrial time intervals where comparable climatic perturbations occurred," noting that "one of these time intervals where historical records suggest that climate conditions might have been similar to today is the so called 'Roman Warm Period' (~200 BC - AD 400)."...developed high-resolution climatic and environmental reconstructions "based on a dinoflagellate cyst record from a well dated site in the Gulf of Taranto located at the distal end of the Po River discharge plume." ...determined that the dinoflagellate cyst warm/cold ratio suggests that sea surface temperature (SST) was "relatively high and stable between 60 BC and AD 200," which they say is suggestive of "slightly higher SST than today." In fact, they say that the association that is observed between 60 BC and AD 90 is equivalent to modern regions that are characterized by higher SST than those in the present day Gulf of Taranto. And noting that "Versteegh et al. (2007) showed that SST in the region is strongly related to local air temperature," they go on to suggest that the region's air temperature "might have been warmer during the Roman Period as well."" [Liang Chen, Karin A.F. Zonneveld, Gerard J.M. Versteegh 2011: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Conclusion: Paleo-climate empirical evidence from the Roman Period indicates that natural climate change causes unprecedented warming, which also may have been the dominant causal factor the modern warming during the 1980-1990's period.
The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud
Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.
If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.
"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.
Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."
Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.
IPCC climate scientist Ben Santer claims that 17 years is the proper benchmark to determine CO2's impact on global temperatures - indeed, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995
With climate scientist Peter Gleick's fraud reaching a crest in the headlines, it's time to revisit the climate "science" of the original Fakegate perp.
Ben Santer recently published research claiming that a 17-year span is the correct period to measure for CO2's influence on global temperatures. The adjacent chart plots the last 17 years through January 2012.
Since January 1995, the HadCRUT global temperature anomaly (the IPCC's gold standard) has declined from January 1995's +0.36° to January 2012's +0.22°. Simply put, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. And the linear trend over the past 17 years is a minor +0.6°C impact by 2100AD, if that trend were to continue.
But as the light blue polynomial curve indicates, global warming of the past (1980s and 1990s) has definitely gone AWOL, and appears to be moving in the direction of global cooling.
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions have had little impact on global temperatures over the near past, which is why there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.