C3

Before Exxon (B.E): New Study Confirms Arctic Area Climate Change & Warming Is Natural

Radical-green, progressive Democrats are now resorting to intimidation and inquisition tactics to force others into conformity with their anti-science regarding climate change. Due to their failing miserably in winning the actual science debate, they turn to coercion on those whom disagree.

Unfortunately, they conveniently ignore (or are unaware) the empirical evidence that climate change is a constant, which has produced ancient and geological era extremes in weather and temperatures - extremes that science has confirmed with a cornucopia of peer-reviewed research.

These extremes even took place eons 'Before Exxon' (BE), the fossil fuel giant that Democrats routinely blame for modern climate change and global warming.

Above is a paleo-climate reconstruction from this study for northern Greenland. It clearly depicts the swings in 'BE' climate change from the warming of the MCA (medieval climate anomaly) to the cooling of the LIA (little ice age) and the extreme warming during the early 20th century (ETCW) from the 1920s to 1940s.

The study's author's make the following comments regarding the δ¹⁸O proxy:

"The δ¹⁸O values of the 20th century are comparable to the medieval period but are lower than that about AD 1420.  …. The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland."

Each of these extremes shown are a result of natural internal/external forcings prior to the gigantic consumer/industrial influx of human CO2 emissions starting post-1950.

Per the abundance of climate empirical research, blaming Exxon and other fossil fuel entities for global warming is simply anti-scientific. Climate change, including that of the late 20th century, does not require a change in CO2 - a trace atmospheric gas -to happen.

Additional historical-climate charts.

Accelerating, Extreme Global Warming? Another Example of It Being AWOL

A group of scientists who researched past climate conditions near the coast of Japan made an interesting discovery.

As the article reports, the climate in that area has not experienced any of the hypothetical CO2-caused warming that "experts" claim is global, extreme and accelerating.

The chart associated with the peer-reviewed study makes it pretty clear that dangerous and unprecedented warming is absent from this part of the world.

The study's authors used tree-ring samples from Japan and Russia. Their proxy reconstruction even has a fitted trend (see red curve) that suggests temperatures there seem cyclical and being driven by natural cyclical forces. Those are thought to include ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. 

When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings. These proxies usually come from widely scattered locations, with probably a rather sparse number of samples. In addition, tree rings don't provide a daily or monthly climate recording, unlike thermometer instruments. Yet, at the end of the day, scientists can produce a temperature record and trends over extended periods from an exceptionally low minimum of datapoints, and then their results are widely accepted by the climate science community.

Sometimes one wonders about these studies. 

That said, these scientists identified another region of the world where dangerous and extreme warming rates are AWOL.

Additional historical charts.

Alarmist Propaganda: About Those "Astronomical" & Extreme Global February Temperatures Reported

Recently, multiple outlets chose to report to their readers and viewers that February 2016 temperatures were "astronomical" and "strange." Yet for a few hundred million people living in two of the leading industrial/consumer nations of the world, the February temperatures were definitely not astronomical, nor strange.

US February Temps (click on)	UK February Temps (click on)

From the U.S. and UK climate agencies, the above two charts plot the absolute temperature levels for the respective countries over the most recent 20 years, plus the global CO2 levels for February.

In the U.S., the February temperature was warm, but not exceptional; and not even the warmest February, especially when put into the context of 5% error bars.

In the UK, the populace experienced February temperatures that were rather well below average for the last 20 years.

As others have noted, the media frenzy regarding "astronomical" represent just more absurdities from alarmist advocacy by "journalists."

Obviously, the two above charts reveal the ludicrous terminology "astronomical" is not really global. Most of any "strange" surface warming likely was generated in regions of the world where there exists an exceptional sparsity of thermometers - in other words, probably the warmest surface regions were based on a given climate agency's strange-simulations. 

And it would seem that continuously rising CO2 levels have had little influence on February temperatures in these industrialized countries. As the majority of experts agree, any high February 2016 regional surface and atmospheric temperatures were the direct result of a natural weather El Nino phenomenon in the the Pacific.

Finally, for those interested in the linear trends for both charts, the U.S. February temperatures are cooling at a robust -15.2°F per century pace; the UK February temps are no slacker as they are cooling at -7.2°C per century rate. Indeed, in the face of huge CO2 emissions, both the UK and the U.S. over the last 20 years exhibit a significant deceleration of temperature change warming.

Strange, does the all-powerful CO2 just ignore months starting with 'F'?

Additional regional and global temp charts.

Note: Source of US and UK absolute February temperatures; source of February CO2 levels. Excel used to plot the line and bar charts and means; built-in Excel chart function for 5% error bars displayed on charts and linear trends calculated. Warning: linear trends should not be interpreted as a prediction(s).

'Senator Bingo'? DC's Top Politician Pushing Those Skeptic-Conspiracy Theories Smears Own Creditibilty

A green extremist politician of the progressive Democrat camp, who has pushed for the Obama administration to investigate those who challenge the climate science orthodoxy dogma, is richly awarded in the game of life.

Of course, his own family's enrichments must be entirely due to the luck of life's game known as 'Bingo' - for sure!

And for sure, his RICO intimidation and threats have nothing to do with with money from green sources regularly flowing into the family coffers, right?

"A major donor is Annenberg Foundation, known for its support of radical leftist and environmentalist projects.  In particular, it funded Chicago Annenberg Challenge, guided by Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist leader, widely quoted as saying: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”" Source

All amazingly good fate for him, but absolutely !true!, really. The Senator's good 'fortune' must be all about that bingo-luck, and just to repeat: there certainly is noooo correlation regarding the favorable personal green connections with his pushing for the prosecution of 'deniers' as he calls them, right?!

Oh, and by the way, color me stupidly skeptical on that idea too.

But let's cut him some slack - maybe the green Senator just does not realize he lives in the proverbial glass greenhouse and would be more believable if he wasn't smearing the windows of his own habitat.

Just say'n.

image source

Solar Flare(out): $1.5 Billion U.S Taxpayer Loan At Risk For Another Green Energy Boondoggle

The list of failed U.S. taxpayer-funded green energy projects just keeps growing.

It is now being embarrassingly reported that the gigantic Ivanpah solar farm, which Google and NRG received huge subsidies for, is not producing the amount of energy contracted for.

The wealthy investors in the project are now requesting an extension of the time needed to prove the farm's output can even meet minimum levels agreed upon.

As this failed boondoggle is proving for U.S. taxpayers, sustainable, efficient and affordable green energy is not easy nor cheap. Deriving energy from the Sun is not "free" as activist proponents of non-fossil fuel sources claim.

And it's not only the U.S. that continues to experience terrible results from subsidized-green projects designed to enrich wealthy investors - here are recent examples of Australia and Spain, plus the ever-growing German Energiewende flop.

As has been well documented from multiple public sources over recent years, the establishment elites of power and wealth continue to easily waste taxpayer billions on questionable politically correct energy sources, instead of focusing those dollars for the basic research needed to make green energy a viable self-standing possibility.

Note: Image source

NOAA Research Confirms The Dominance of Natural Climate Change: 1935 vs 2016

(click on charts to enlarge)

The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.

Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.

Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.

Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.

[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]

Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.

Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.

Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.

This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses. 

Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).

Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.

How can this be one might ask?

Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.

Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.

The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.

The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.

Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.

This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.

In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)

As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.

Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.

Latest Research: Arctic & Greenland Regions Warmer In Past When CO2 Well Below Current Levels

(click on to enlarge)

The continuing scientific climate research confirms what 97% of studies have previously determined: the northern latitudes, including the Arctic and Greenland, were considerably warmer in the past when CO2 levels were substantially below those of the 21st century.

The science facts are indisputable, natural forces and cycles frequently pushed the global climate into extremes of cooling and warming.

As this study found:

".....determined that (1) "maximum concentrations of chironomids, maximum occurrence of ephippia of the water flea Daphnia pulex, highest organic matter contents and lowest minerogenic input from c. 7700 to 4400 cal. a BP probably reflect the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM)," that (2) "the highest temperatures during the HTM are indicated around 7000 cal. a BP, when Salix arctica, which is considered a warmth-loving plant, had a maximum," that (3) "comparisons with Holocene records from East and North Greenland show similar immigration histories and similar trends, with the Little Ice Age as the coldest period during the Holocene, culminating about 150 years ago," and that (4) "subsequent warming does not indicate environmental conditions comparable to the HTM yet at this stage."

Additional climate-history research articles.

Global Warming "Science": New Study Reveals Large Temperature Fabrication By Cherry-Pick

Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.

Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.

For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.

The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.

So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?

It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.

(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)

The end result?

The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.

And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.

Further analysis of the new RSS "empirical" evidence is discussed here, here, here, and here.

Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.

Note: Excel used to plot the RSS v3.3 and v4.0 mid-troposphere datasets, including the 60-month averages.

March 3, 2016: Global Warming & Climate Change Videos Update

A new batch of recent videos related to the global warming and climate change debate can now be found here at Collection #8.

Below is a short clip of one of the videos.

 

 

Green & Blood Energy: Whales Visit Offshore Wind Farm, Then They Die

Heavily subsidized wind turbine farms have been a mainstay for investors seeking wealth from the government mandated, renewable energy green fiascoes.

And wind farms have become a bloody slaughter-grounds mainstay for multiple species of birds and bats.

A threat of green-made extinction is in the air.

Now it appears that the significant offshore wind farm noise and other acoustic artifacts combine to produce a deadly impact on whales. And additional marine species may be adversely impacted too.

This image of the beached sperm whales on Europe's shores is not a typical occurrence. As this article explains, the gigantic offshore wind farms these two whales traversed may be the underlying cause. Sadly, an additional 27 whales suffered the same fates at the same time.

Since wind farm power generation has no discernible influence on global warming, and are unable to survive without a massive transfer of average taxpayer monies to wealthy investors, via government mandate, maybe its time for this subsidization of mass animal killings to end.

New Study: Hottest Temperatures For Arabian Sea Recorded During Roman & Medieval Periods

As the vast majority of climate peer-reviewed studies confirm, there were multiple periods in the geological and ancient past that exhibited, not only extreme climate change, but also hotter temperatures prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer greenhouse gases.

This new study regarding the Arabian Sea temperatures during winter seasons adds to the mountain of evidence that current climate change is of a less extreme variety, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions.

And as this other study indicates, that extra CO2 has provided substantial benefits to the biosphere.