C3

Consensus? Orthodox Climate Science Performs A Major Flip-Flop

(click to enlarge - image source)

As has often been the case, official climate science is now agreeing with what skeptics identified several years ago: Antarctica is not warming.

The prestigious science consensus journal Nature has published a new peer-reviewed study that counters what that journal has been reporting about Antarctica for at least the last decade.

This should not come as a surprise to the observant.

The global warming doomsday scientists have relied on a compliant mainstream media to claim that their opinions represent the supposed 97% of settled science - an indisputable "consensus" that should not be debated. But, as in almost every scientific endeavor, the science is never, ever settled.

Yet the climate science orthodoxy continues to push the catastrophic scenario that Earth's major coastal and island regions will be submerged due to the melting of the polar ice sheets found in Antarctica. Unfortunately for the consensus alarmism, this new study indicates Antarctica's canary in the global warming fearmongering-fable has actually been cooling over the last 20 years, not warming (see chart).

Per an article on the study:

"Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature. The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected."

And what do they say next, after being severely humiliated with the empirical evidence that skeptics rely on? Well.....the consensus doomsday scientists bounce right back with their orthodoxy beliefs, based on the always wrong climate model computer simulations.

"Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long-term warming because of man-made climate change...“Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late-20th-­century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,” the Turner research concluded."

Previous polar and sea ice articles.

Empirical Evidence: Climate Change Driven By Non-CO2 Factors, Experts Find

(click to enlarge -- image source)

It is indisputable that significant climate change is a never ending condition: Earth's climate, due to internal and external forces, is inconstant and variable across regions.

Chinese researchers determined that non-CO2 forcings are the principal causes of majors swings in a climate's temperature, be it cooling and warming. They also determined that the modern 20th century warming, which doomsday alarmists attribute solely to the trace gas CO2, is well below the confirmed warming that took place in earlier, pre-industrial periods.

Their research is based on the empirical evidence of a reconstructed temperature dataset using tree rings from China's northwestern Sichuan Plateau. This new dataset confirms what the multitude of previous studies have determined - significant climate changes are absolutely natural.

This study's conclusions:

"Seven major cold periods and three major warm periods were identified from this reconstruction, which might be linked with volcanic and solar activities. The Little Ice Age (LIA) climate can also be well represented and clearly end with climatic amelioration at the end of the 19th century. The 18th and 20th centuries were warm with less extreme cold years, while the 17th and 19th century were cold with more extreme cold years. Moreover, the 20th century rapid warming was not obvious in our RLST reconstruction, which implies that mean maximum temperature, as a unique temperature indicator, might play an important and different role in global change. Overall, the RLST variability in the NWSP might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing"

 

Prior climate history articles.

ClimateFact Verified: Tropical Pacific Islands Are Not Being Drowned By Rising Seas

(image source)

Per a previous analysis of rising seas surrounding Pacific islands, the satellite measurements indicate that seas are rising but at a very meager rate. The current sea rise rate is significantly below what consensus climate science alarmists have predicted.

So, how do the doomsday claims that tropical islands are being lost to "rapidly" rising seas compare to reality?

Scientific peer-reviewed research can answer that question: The claims are bogus.

A new study examined the Jaluit Atoll of the Marshall Islands.

Back in 1958, Typhoon Ophelia passed by the atoll causing 14 deaths, plus resulting in the atoll shrinking in land area. Per the study:

"...the pair of New Zealand researchers set out to examine historical changes in 87 islands found within the Jaluit Atoll...over the period 1945-2010. During this time, the islands were subjected to ongoing sea level rise and the passage of a notable typhoon...which caused severe damage with its >100 knot winds and abnormal wave heights...caused a decrease in total island land area of approximately five percent, yet Ford and Kench write that “despite [this] significant typhoon-driven erosion and a relaxation period coincident with local sea-level rise, [the] islands have persisted and grown.” Between 1976 and 2006, for example, 73 out of the 87 islands increased in size, and by 2010, the total landmass of the islands had exceeded the pre-typhoon area by nearly 4 percent."

Simply stated, this study again confirms that doomsday prognostications based on climate model simulations have no relation to the actual Pacific island/atoll reality during periods of sea rise.

Additional peer-reviewed and ocean/sea articles  

Ohio State Violence "Experts": 'How does climate affect violence?' Their "New" Theory Explains All

Science research (and implementation) nowadays produces all sorts of headlines that are of significant interest to the public and policymakers.

But, as seems to be the case, the natural processes of climate change, global warming and global cooling appear to bring the quack scientists with truly quack theories out of the ivy towers in search of more research funding.

Case in point: the Ohio State researchers who claim that a warmer climate produces more violence - this "new" theory that hotter temperatures cause more aggression has been easily debunked before (and debunking this theory is kinda like shooting politically correct fish in a barrel).

A Mob Of 'Foreign Youths' Assault 35 Females At Swedish Music Festival

Swedish Solution To Muslims Attacking Women: Don’t Grope Me Wristbands

Muslims Attack People in England for Drinking Beer...

Cultural Enrichment: Muslim Smashes Up Swedish Church, Italian Saint Defaced With “Allahu Akbar” Graffiti

Muslim Migrants Attack 60 Minutes Journalist in Europe

Muslim Teens Stone Transgender Women in Germany

For an abundance of similar headlines that reflect violence across a wide range of climates, go here.

These most recent headlines firmly establish that aggressive violence is likely more a result of demographics (i.e. societal, cultural and religious backgrounds) than climate. In other words, you can take someone out a violent area with a very warm climate and nothing basically changes - well.....other than civilization just gets more violence in the cooler climate, obviously.