« July 2013 | Main | September 2013 »
Of course, it is well documented that Arnold Schwarzeneger is one of the world's absolute worst CO2 polluters and global warming hypocrites.
Spewing CO2 is one thing; spewing NAZI-green 'final solution' code is a whole nuther ballgame though. Unfortunately, it does reveal his roots and inclinations.
(Pssst: Arnold, blame the steroids for unleashing your morbid ancestral urges.)
Appears Harry must not be satisfied with the "support" coming from those previous stimulus-welfare, scandal plagued solar, companies in Nevada.
Hmmm...maybe this is why Reid spouts unicorn science.
published by www.c3headlines.com
Like the Obama administration's farcical, ham-handed climate change "movement," which Americans are rejecting soundly, he has jolted Americans to the real risk of the USA becoming a police state that constantly harasses political opponents and citizens.
They are rejecting his totalitarian view of "security" also.
****Like the cartoon strip? Get Dilbert stuff and wisdom here.****
A primary reason why Obama is so incompetent as president is due to a basic character flaw - an uncompromising ideologue mentality, which has given us ClownCare.
Besides the health care fiasco, the climate change / global warming arena offers further evidence...his character flaw won't even allow him to admit that the empirical science contradicts his beliefs.
As we have pointed out multiple times, the IPCC's complex climate models can't predict squat.
Despite the empirical evidence, green-crony dollars speak a lot louder than truth.
(click on image for original/source)
Fighting climate change, supposedly due to global warming / cooling / warming, is an idiot's Don Quixote obsession, especially since climate change is constantly happening, naturally.
And as this actual result happened at the MSNBC/OFA event, it provides proof that the public is a lot smarter than the activists.....my god, Chris Matthews et al. are truly pathetic, no?
Honestly, it just makes you wonder if MSNBC personnel are stupendously stupid or pathological liars or just need to fanatically obsessively agree with Obama despite the current climate reality - cooling.
Note: Excel used to produce chart and trend (larger version here) - find RSS satellite data here.
Obama's "green cronies" (ie, large donors) have raped the American taxpayer, with ECOtality appearing to be the most recent culprit.
For explanations of how Obama administration's green-cronyism works, read here and here.
As is well "known" by the greenies, and widely told by the mainstream press, the Bush/Exxon/Koch partnership is responsible for all green-evil, not just the endangerment of this "falcon" breeding tree. ;-)
H/T: 'Duke'
Is he the penultimate, politico liberal Democrat hypocrite?
Living a life of privileged arrogance that is totally non-sustainable, combined with his massive, ever-increasing personal CO2/carbon footprint. And he lectures the rest of us about protecting "God's Creation"?
Note: Source of Kerry's yacht picture.
For more on this typical "green," slimeball Democrat, check out this information.
Plus, the key 5 things to know about this liberal Democrat's car company.
As this NOAA map makes abundantly clear, the vast majority of the U.S. has experienced a cooling trend over the last 15 years (12-month periods ending in June).
Note: Square mile size for each state here; additional temperature/climate charts; large version of map
Per NOAA's dataset, over the last 15 years for the 12-mth periods ending June, the continental U.S. has been cooling, robustly.
This took place while CO2 levels were well above the "safe" 350ppm mark.
Additional temperature charts.
Here's a chart even his lordship may understand.
Additional temperature-fabrication charts.
You cannot make this stuff up...even if you tried. The USA's unbelievable 'Hypocrite-in-Chief'
Of course, besides 'Bo,' a separate plane was needed to carry Obama's personal basketballs (look below the trousers of Navy person in picture).
(click on image for originals/sources)
A list of current climate attributes that the mainstream press does not like to report because of their left/green agenda.
(click on image for original/source)
As this second link confirms, 'press' hysteria does not let facts get in the way of "objective" reporting.
Since the early 1980's, number of wildfires has been slowly declining.
(click on image for original/source)
(click image for source)
(click on image to enlarge, image source)
Untold resources have been spent by government bureaucrats in an attempt to improve the dismal performance of the CMIP3 computer climate models. After billions being spent on these IPCC CMIP-class of models one would expect that they would have a confirmed capability to accurately predict Antarctic sea ice reality.
At least that's what 5 climate scientists expected. Wrong.
"The authors write that "Phase 5 of CMIP (CMIP5) will provide the model output that will form the basis of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]," and they therefore thought it important to determine how well these models represent reality...examined "the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 models used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005."...report that (1) "the majority of models have too small of an SIE at the minimum in February," that (2) "several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum," that (3) "in contrast to the satellite data, which exhibit a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979-2005 shows a decrease in each month," that (4) "the models have very large differences in SIE over 1860-2005," and that (5) "the negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979-2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." [John Turner, Thomas Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth Marshall, Scott Hosking 2013: Journal of Climate]
Additional climate charts.
(click image for source)
The evidence grows that the majority scientists associated with the IPCC's fear-mongering of hypothetical catastrophic global warming and climate change are nothing more than 3rd-party shills, in the proverbial backpockets of "green" special interests - those green lobbyists that enrich themselves off the taxpayer trough in Washington D.C.
Billions of taxpayer monies have been pocketed by rich Democrat elites for their government subsidized "green" energy and vehicle projects. Almost all of these Obama-crony green projects have been abysmal failures, with the massive failure of Solyndra being at the top of the list for money wasted/lost.
The only reason these green-fiascoes even have a chance to metastasize in the D.C. palaces of power is a result of IPCC-related climate "scientists" supporting the rich special interest lobbyists and partisan politics. The faux Nobel prize winner, who had his infamous 'hockey stick' graph tossed out of the 2007 IPCC climate report, appears to be the most recent 'the-sky-is-falling' alarmist directly tied to green special interests.
"Climatologist and former University of Virginia researcher Dr. Michael Mann has returned to Virginia, and he has a message for the commonwealth’s residents: vote for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, he just looovess science. And Mann should know, after all he’s a scientist!"
"Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe and three top GreenTech advisers met with the key White House aide responsible for helping bankrupt solar-panel maker Solyndra win federal loans and high-profile presidential support, a Watchdog investigation has revealed."
"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Email exchanges with the head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that Terry McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive and its funding arm enjoy unusual access to several top Obama administration officials...In one instance, McAuliffe appealed directly to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for special treatment to secure GreenTech’s funding...."
(click on charts to enlarge; source of chart on left)
The chart on the left was produced by Dr. Ole Humlum, who is a scientist/researcher/teacher with a deep interest in the polar regions. He is a prolific author and is responsible for many peer reviewed articles (here is a recent study of his).
This chart comes from Dr. Humlum's invaluable, publicly available climate resource, www.climate4you.com.
The primary dataset plotted on the top-left chart is the Greenland GISP 2 ice core evidence - reconstructed ice sheet temperatures at Greenland's Summit. The bottom-left chart represents a plot of ancient atmospheric CO2 levels that dovetail with periods shown in the top chart of temperatures.
The top chart reveals the wide, extreme swings in Arctic region temperatures, which took place without any significant change in CO2 levels. On the chart, 'C3' has noted the 'peaks' of many of the temperature extremes with red dots. In addition, the points at which the shift occurred to higher temperatures are denoted with purple arrows. There are seven of these extreme upward spikes in temperatures marked in this manner.
For the modern warming, Dr. Humlum's best estimate of what an ice core proxy plot may indicate for a current temperature is marked with a red dashed line. He estimates that a ice core proxy temp for today may be equal to the ice core proxy temp for the Medieval Period. (This is just an estimate, of which there are many. Take your pick.)
The chart on the right is a bar graph representation of the data plotted on the leftmost chart. Specifically, each bar represents the Arctic/Greenland temperature increase from the beginning point (purple arrow) of an extreme temperature increase to its corresponding peak (red dot). In addition, for each bar is listed how many years before the present (ie, 1950) that the 'peak' occurred; how many years until the 'peak' was reached from the 'low' beginning point; and, the associated atmospheric CO2 level for the given 'peak'.
Conclusions:
It's a lot of visual information to consume in these three charts, but in general....
1. Past extreme temperature increases happened without a significant change in CO2 - extreme temperature changes are caused by natural forces
2. The majority of extreme temperature increases were greater than the recent modern temperature change
3. Ergo, the vast majority of the modern temperature change could be a result of natural forces, not due to the hypothetical impact of human CO2 emissions
4. The majority of extreme temperature increases were of longer duration than the modern global warming of 228 years (from 1785AD to 2013AD)
5. Ergo, while the modern warming has "paused" over the past decade, it may begin anew adding years to its length, all because of the same natural forces that happened before
6. Since the modern global warming experience has not been as extreme a 'climate change' as the natural past climate changes (in terms of duration or amount of increase) it is highly probable that modern global warming is mostly an 'under-performing' natural phenomenon with a tiny enhancement from human CO2 emissions.
This actual empirical evidence clearly points to natural phenomena as being the culprits of the world's continuous climate change and warming/cooling. The fact that the billion dollar climate models, to a great degree, ignore or minimize a wide variety of these powerful natural climate forces likely explains their well documented, spectacular failures of prediction - the same goes for the consensus "experts."
(click on chart to enlarge; source)
The research evidence keeps on mounting in regards to the unprecedented warming that the world experienced well before any industrial/consumer age CO2 emissions entered the atmosphere.
The adjacent chart from a new peer-reviewed study makes this very clear. Not only were the Medieval Warming temperatures some 2.9 degrees higher than the recent current modern warming, those unprecedented temperatures existed at atmospheric CO2 levels significantly below the claimed "tipping point" of 350ppm.
Once again, and for a region of the earth far removed from the North Atlantic Ocean and the lands that surround it, we have evidence for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and its significant exceedance of the warmth of the Current Warm Period, clearly suggesting that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth's current level of warmth, nor is there any compelling reason to attribute the essentially non-existent 20th-century warming at Laguna Escondida to the concomitant increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration, for there was little to no increase in the air's CO2 content during the development of the much greater peak warmth (~2.9 °C) that was experienced at that location back in the middle of the MWP. [Julie Elbert, Richard Wartenburger, Lucien von Gunten, Roberto Urrutia, Daniela Fischer, Marian Fujak, Yvonne Hamann, Nicolas David Greber, Martin Grosjean 2013: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
Previous climate-history postings and charts.
(click on image to enlarge, source of chart)
As the above indisputable, objective emprical evidence makes clear, the Venus-like boiling off of Earth's oceans, especially at the 'Tropic' latitudes, is ludicrous.
Recall, the experts stated that 350ppm of atmospheric CO2 levels was the "tipping point" for the oceans - helloooo....we passed 350ppm way back in 1987.
Oooops!
Note: Check out this site for more charts like the above.
(click on graphs to enlarge)
Above are plots of several climate models updated with the most current HadCRUT and/or NASA-GISS global temperature observations. As noted in previous 'C3' posts, the traditional, wildly expensive climate agency computer models have done an absolute abysmal job at forecasting climate change and global warming.
Charts 2, 3 and 4 reveal the massive forecasting failure that the billion-dollar climate simulations have delivered. In the face of consistent, very predictable growth in CO2 emissions over the 21st century, each of these models predicted a huge increase in global temperatures, which turned out to be the opposite of climate reality.
Chart #2 deserves special note. This is the NASA/James Hansen model of global temperatures that has been used since 1988 to effectively frighten the public. In 1988, James Hansen predicted that if human CO2 emissions growth continued in a "business as usual" manner then we would face runaway global warming - this outcome is depicted by the bright green curve labeled 'Scenario A' on Chart #2.
When Hansen made this prediction, the human CO2 emissions "business as usual" growth amounted to an approximate 32% increase over the prior 15 years to 1988. In contrast, the 15 years prior to 2013 saw CO2 emissions grow by about 41% - a significantly robust increase over Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.
Yet the actual plotted global temperature results on Chart #2, through June 2013, reveal that global warming has died and world temperatures are well below the NASA "business as usual" scenario. In fact, the actual temperatures are practically below the NASA model's 'Scenario C' (the cyan/aqua curve on chart) that assumes CO2 emissions had been reduced to year 2000 levels.
As the actual, objective empirical evidence clearly documents, the consensus "expert" models are severely flawed.
However, not all models are created equal and the one that produces the best global temperature predictions is also the one that is the most elegant, simplest and least costly. That model's superior performance is shown in Chart #1 (click on to enlarge).
This model was developed by Duke University scientist, Nicola Scafetta. This model's description and results are explained here and here. Needless to say, this model's continuing success is a product of non-consensus thinking, which the IPCC's climate "experts" reject because Scafetta's model is not based on the very obviously crippled CO2-AGW hypothesis.
And that's why the mainstream science/environmental "journalists" have not made this model's success widely known since it inconveniently, and embarrassingly, establishes that all their previous extreme global warming forecast articles per the consensus "experts" were wrong.
Additional climate charts and graphs.
Note: If you desire to produce your own Excel chart to compare against Chart #4, download CMIP3 and HadCRUT3 data from here. For 'C3' Excel charts/graphs, this link has the vast majority of datasets used at our site.
(click on charts to enlarge, sources of data)
The above charts represent the annual (12-month) change in the June global temperature anomalies, using the IPCC gold-standard - the UK's HadCRUT dataset.
The leftmost chart plots each year's temperature change (the triangles) from June to June, plus it includes a curve (black line) of annual CO2 levels since 1850. The red curve represents a moving 30-year average of the June-to-June temperature changes, and the blue line is placed at the peak of the 30-year average change.
The rightmost chart represents the most extreme June-to-June temperature changes since 1850, both warming and cooling change extremes. There are a total of 163 observations of June-to-June temperature changes since 1850 and this column chart depicts the 20 most extreme changes (12.3% of observations).
Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
Note: Charts' plots and averages produced using Excel. Anyone interested in the actual empirical evidence can download the datasets used for these charts and graph the data using Excel - no PhD, nor programming/coding skills required. 'Just Do It' and educate yourself about the facts instead of relying on dubious hearsay and speculations, or believing the infamous 3rd party press releases that the mainstream environmental journalists publish without any due diligence.