The UN's IPCC latest climate change report (AR6) has been severely tarnished by activism propaganda that subverts the actual empirical climate science reality.
A group of scientists have produced a report that identifies and analyzes the combination of climate change misinformation and disinformation that exists in the 2023 AR6 report.
The press release for the analysis of the IPCC report can be found here; the full report here.
Why "Infamous"? Because no one has ever located this climate unicorn.
The hotspot is an essential claim of climate change doomsday beliefs - the belief that it exists and persists in the mid-troposphere. Combine that with the IPCC's experts reliance on climate models' pseudo-science which predict that increases of atmospheric trace greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.) are the cause of the hotspot.
Many doomsday climate scientists believe that an atmospheric hotspot exists, and for some, it is indicative of an Earth rapidly warming to become a Venus-like oven, thus leading to our planet's oceans boiling.
Hence, for the gullible politicians and journalists, a fake climate crisis posing as an existential threat.
But new peer-reviewed research from a NOAA climate scientist team confirms what doomsday skeptics have been reporting for years: that the climate model's tropical hotspot is non-existent. Recent articles about this new NOAA temperature research can be found here, here and here.
This NOAA team of scientists corroborate the findings of the UAH satellite dataset record for the mid-troposphere over the tropics. (Also corroborating the UAH lower troposphere temperature records.)
To put an empirical point on it, the satellite observations show that the tropical mid-troposphere has been cooling since August 2012 (see chart) even with the El Niño temperature spikes of 2015-16 and 2018-19.
Stated another way, that is over 10 years with no significant warming and no permanent hotspot.
Confirmation of the satellite data can be found at this NOAA site of surface tropical temperatures for the Hawaiian region, which has also been cooling, since October 2012.
Conclusion: The 'expert' computer climate change models have dangerously overstated how much warming would be the result of trace greenhouse gases. These egregious climate warming predictions cascade into even more dangerous errors about the ultimate impacts of climate change.
And let it be known that computer models for the climate are not alone when it comes to bad predictions: some of the worst predictions are realized almost on a daily basis from computer models used for COVID deaths, short-term weather forecasting, economic forecasting, or stock market performance.
This simple truth is why policymakers should never rely on computer model outputs. Computer models are great for research but not for correctly predicting the future.
Additional prior climate model charts and links to past posts on failed predictions.
Note: Source for UAH mid-troposphere data. Excel used to plot data points and calculate trend.
Climate doomsday cultists are constantly reminding that CO2 emissions are causing an increased frequency and intensity of precipitation events. But these claims are categorically wrong, per the empirical science.
From a review of a recent peer-reviewed journal article:
"According to the seven researchers, the lower Yangtze River basin has experienced "wet periods with precipitation above the mean value ... in 1845-1891, 1907-1917, and 1935-1959," whereas dry periods occurred in "1892-1906, 1918-1934, and 1960-2011." But there were also a total of 28 anomalously wet and 28 anomalously dry years across the record...And upon further examination, Xu et al. report that "anomalous events frequently occurred in the 1880s, 1890s and 1910s (5 events per decade), but seldom in the 1980s and 2000s (only 1 event per decade)." Consequently, it would appear that the frequency of anomalous wet and dry years has declined in recent decades, having been more common in the earlier part of the record than the latter."
As the empirical mountain of scientific evidence grows, it establishes the corresponding reality that the climate doomsday propaganda has a greater propensity to being refuted. Doomsday anti-science never fares well when exposed to the bright light of empirical fact-based research.
Additional failed climate change predictions.
Back around 2005-2010, the climate change experts and the mainstream media were going on and on about the Amazon devastation due to droughts.
The implication was that the droughts were due to human caused climate change, and the droughts, in turn, would cause more climate change that would then cause the droughts to worsen - a prospective positive feedback loop prediction that did not bode good tidings for humans.
But skeptics around the world challenged these conclusions for obvious reasons.
Major regional droughts have always happened and they were not driven by human CO2 emission activity in the form of fossil fuel consumption. Plus, surprise, droughts have this habit of ending, which are then followed by periods of plentiful rain.
The 2005 and 2010 Amazon droughts were no different.
As it turns out, the skeptics were right again and the climate experts; and the expert/MSM coalition were again victims of their own failed prediction hubris.
In a recent peer-reviewed study, nine scientists reconstructed the precipitation totals for the eastern equatorial Amazon basin of Brazil.
The adjacent chart depicts their findings. Simply stated, there are periods of excess rainfall and there are subsequent periods of drought over the 230-year period. The dramatic precipitation fluctuations are part of the natural cycle and those droughts taking place in the 21st century are part of this natural pattern.
From a review of the study:
"Examination of the precipitation record reveals, in the words of the authors, that it is "dominated by interannual and subdecadal variability, not unlike the instrumental precipitation totals for the eastern Amazon study area." Focusing on such variability captured in the reconstruction, Granato-Souza et al. note the existence of two extended wet episodes, a mid-twentieth century period from 1942-1956 and an earlier late nineteenth century period between 1882 and 1903, and one exceptional extended dry episode that occurred during the years 1864 and 1881.....A longer-term perspective of the moisture regime clearly indicates there is no compelling support for that contention given that both wet and dry periods of greater duration and magnitude have naturally occurred throughout the record despite atmospheric CO2 concentrations being much lower than they are today."
See prior articles on droughts and failed predictions.
A warm water coral reef provides the latest evidence that coral bleaching events occur with some regularity, and that there is always a reef recovery, no matter how severe the bleaching.
A team of 15 researchers analyzed extracted coral reef cores from the equatorial Pacific's Jarvis Island.
The evidence they gathered indicates bleaching events were even taking place early in the 20th century, and that there appears to be a periodic 5-year repeat of the coral bleaching.
Per a review of the peer-reviewed study:
"In contemplating the above findings, Barkley et al. say that their historical bleaching reconstruction "reveals a coral reef community that has bleached frequently, and at times catastrophically, yet appears to have maintained a healthy state over time."..."Barkley et al. note that "the record implies that the Jarvis coral community has bleached with varying degrees of severity every five years, on average"....while...."it was ranked among the healthiest of all ocean ecosystems, notwithstanding it has experienced repeated episodes of moderate to severe bleaching every five years."
"According to the authors, recurring bleaching events were also identified prior to the six decades of time focused on in their study (1960-2016). As noted, Barkley et al. report that "two cores extend back to the turn of the 20th century, and the earliest stress bands appear in these cores in 1912, indicating that bleaching occurred on Jarvis over 100 years ago."
"And, it suggests rising atmospheric CO2 and rising ocean temperatures over the course of the past century have had no measurable impact on either the frequency or severity of El Niño warming events."
Prior articles debunking predicted specie extinction myths
It is a sacrosanct belief of end-of-world cultists that the global warming since the onset of the large growth in consumer/industrial CO2 emissions would bring in its wake devastating and extreme severe-weather events.
But that has not been the case as a new peer-reviewed study discovered.
Researchers investigated the frequency of severe thunderstorms and hail events to determine if the significant regional warming across the Tibetan Plateau (TP) area had generated more such events.
From a review of the study...."despite considerable warming over the period 1960-2012, Zou et al. determined that there has been a statistically significant decline of 3.1 storms days per decade across the TP. Hail days, on the other hand, showed a slight increasing trend of 5.8% per decade from 1955-1980, but thereafter declined by a much larger 18.3% per decade over the period 1980-2012.....Consequently, they conclude that their results "imply that global warming is likely to cause a decrease in the conditions required for severe thunderstorm and hail formation in the TP over the next century.""
For those who keep abreast of climate empirical science, this is not a one-off study. The scientific literature overflows with studies refuting the doomer-alarmist predictions that an increased frequency and intensity of severe climate change weather events would develop - after 30+ years, it has simply not happened.
While this list is not comprehensive in any way, shape or form, it is indicative of the existing severe weather research available that refutes the spurious claims.
Additional severe weather charts.
In the real world, climate model simulations have been self-debunking over recent decades due to the constant prediction failures.
And the latest embarrassing example of model prediction failure is very relevant to the doomsday Arctic meltdown myth that the anti-science 'climate emergency' cult pushes.
A new peer-reviewed study by a group of researchers set out to determine the accuracy of top-tier climate model predictions of Arctic warming rates versus the actual Arctic warming rate. Their research involved the output of the same 36 climate models used for the UN's IPCC work.
This chart is a snapshot of their work, which visually portrays the computer climate model simulations over a 138-year period, from 1880 to 2017, and how they consistently overestimate how fast the Arctic is warming since around 1950.
Per the study's findings: "...the model-estimated rate of secular warming (the solid red line) increased quite sharply across the 138-year period, rising from a value of around 0 °C per decade at the beginning of the record to a value of 0.35 °C per decade at the end. Observations, in contrast, started off with a higher warming rate than that of the models (a rate of 0.13 °C per decade; the solid black line), but dipped below the rate of warming predicted by the models around the middle of the record, thereafter experiencing a lower rate of warming relative to the models through the end of the record. By the end of the record, the model-predicted secular rate of warming was 67% higher than that determined from observations (0.21 °C). Thus, the figure shows an increasing disparity between modelled and observed warming rates that starts around the middle of the record and grows to 0.14 °C per decade by the mid-2010s."
"Huang et al. state the obvious, that "anthropogenically induced secular warming has been overestimated by the CMIP5 GCMs during the most recent warming period, and the overestimation is aggravated with time." What is more, given the error bars shown on the figure, in the very near future the observed warming rate will likely soon fall outside the significance levels of the ensemble model mean, removing any remaining credibility left in the model projections of future Arctic warming."
Based on the well documented abundance of failures of even the most sophisticated climate models, it should now be considered criminal malfeasance or malpractice that any politician or bureaucrat utilizes said models for setting policies. While doomsday climate-crisis cultists propagandize using the untenable and unreliable model projections, those that represent the public should be employing more sober analysis and commonsense for policy development and implementation, if any.
A terse synopsis: Climate models can't predict squat.
Prior peer-reviewed and climate model articles.
The doomsday climate change alarmists keep having their science-denying chops busted and it has happened again.
A new study on the climate change impact on sea coral habitat is very inconvenient for the cult of anti-empirical science deniers.
For way too long, these deniers have completely ignored the actual science being conducted to determine if the combination of global warming and seawater 'acidification' from fossil fuel emissions would lead to the harm and devastation of sea coral.
The new study again confirms what the science deniers simply do not want to hear. Red Sea corals are robust enough to adapt to changing climate conditions in their environment.
From the review of the new peer-reviewed study by Bellworthy, J., Menoud, M., Krueger, T., Meibim, A. and Fine, M. 2019.
"In a recent study on the combined effects of so-called ocean acidification and warming on corals, Bellworthy et al. (2019) exposed mature colonies of the [Red Sea] reef-building coral Stylophora pistillata to extreme seawater conditions of pH 0.4 units lower and temperatures 5°C warmer than they are today....."Notably, they add that under the experimental conditions "S. pistillata planulae were resistant in terms of their settlement, physiology and survival, even when parents were exposed to severe ocean acidification and warming during the gamete maturation, fertilization and brooding period"....."And because that resistance was evident to even the most extreme predictions of future ocean acidification and warming (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), it would appear a solid bet that these corals will be around for centuries to come."
Additional peer-reviewed science articles & prior sea/ocean postings.
As numerous 'C3' articles on past warming has pointed out, our modern global warming is not so "unprecedented" as the scientifically illiterate alarmist doomers claim - here's looking at you, Greta Thunberg, know-nothing Hollywood celebrities, and mainstream mocking bird "journalists."
As this chart indicates, in the very distant past, temperatures were indeed at times warmer or match what we are currently experiencing.
Per the peer-reviewed study, across a span of 2,500 years researchers were able to reconstruct the bottom waters of a fjord.
"Asteman et al. first note that "the reconstructed temperature range (2.7-7.8 °C) is within the present-day annual variability, documented from instrumental temperature measurements in the fjord's deepest basin since 1890." Next, they point out that "the Gulmar Fjord winter bottom water temperature record shows both centennial and multidecadal variability and has a striking resemblance to climate periods historically known in northern Europe over the last 2500 years." Those periods include the Roman Warm Period (RWP), Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP), Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Little Ice Age (LIA) and Current Warm Period (CWP).
According to Asteman et al., temperatures during the RWP (prior to ~ AD 450) were approximately 2.5 °C higher than the 1961-1999 mean, encompassing a temperature range of 5.4-7.9 °C. During the DACP (~ AD 450-850), temperatures were more variable but stayed in the range of 4-8 °C. The MWP, which the authors say occurred around AD 850-1350, coincided with a grand solar maximum with water temperatures ranging between 5.4 and 7.6 °C. Thereafter, temperatures cooled once again during the LIA, with bottom water temperature averaging 2-3 °C lower than the instrumental 1961-1999 temperature mean and hovering between a range of 2.9 to 6.6 °C.Finally, at the end of the record, temperatures warmed up again. However, Asteman et al. report that the contemporary warming of the 20th century "does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective and is of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly."
Of course, all that past warming was due to normal climatic oscillations and fluctuations within various cycles. This past warming had nothing to do with CO2 and other emitted greenhouse gases.
And just as occurred in the past, it is highly likely that a major portion of the warming since the Little Ice Age is also natural.
Additional historical temperature charts.
Does a high level of CO2 harm or decrease your mental performance? Nope.
A 2019 study by researchers conclude that the brain's critical levels of cognition and decision making are not impaired when the human body is subjected to much higher levels of CO2 than found in Earth's atmosphere.
"It is well-established that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 pose no direct threat to human health...the ten U.S. researchers tested the mental acuity of 22 "astronaut-like" male and female subjects to four different CO2 concentrations (600, 1200, 2500 and 5000 ppm), subjecting them to standardized decision making and cognition tests...According to the authors, "there were no clear dose-response patterns for performance on either [the] Strategic Management Simulation or Cognition" evaluations...Consequently, when considering the full range of CO2 values examined, they conclude that "performance across tests did not differ between baseline (600 ppm) and the higher concentrations.""
Timing is everything in the political world, and especially when you are already a failed U.S. Senator with an approval rating of 18%. What does one do in such circumstances?
Of course, if one finds himself in such an unenviable position, one forms a stop climate change doomsday 'Mod Squad' in the U.S. Senate that is fashioned to curry the favor of 'The Squad' socialist crazies -i.e. AOC and others.
Surprise! That's just what the infamous GOP's Mitt 'Pierre Delecto' Romney has done.
Unfortunately for Romney, real scientists keep releasing more scientific research and empirical evidence that refutes the climate change doomsday scenarios that Pierre and his 'tax & spend' senatorial comrades believe in.
Case in point is the recent debunking of the alarmist propaganda disaster scenario where Pacific islands will be submerged by rising sea.
Here is a review of multiple peer-reviewed island studies that provide the doomsday shredding analyses.
This is not a one-off. The scientific literature is filled with studies debunking all the doomsday scenarios; and the new research keeps growing in this realm, much to the chagrin and bad timing of many a political has-been.
p.s. If you're thinking of giving money to the GOP's senate campaign organization, don't. Give to individual candidates but not to an organization that condones the likes of Pierre Delecto.
Let's be brutally honest: the gullible and very stupid have been brainwashed to believe the propaganda that human CO2 emissions have a significant climate change impact resulting in severe weather events.
As this chart from a peer-reviewed research journal indicates, since ancient times, the climate has been in a constant state of change causing extremely low and high weather events, regardless of the atmospheric CO2 levels.
This group of researchers analyzed an almost 5 century record of streamflow volumes in the Southern Tibetan Plateau. Streamflow volume is driven by precipitation and weather extremes in either direction would be identified with this type of analysis.
"As seen there, perhaps the most striking feature of the record is the short eight year decline in streamflow from the highest value (487.1 m3 s-1) in 1871 to the lowest value (205.4 m3 s-1) of the nearly five-century-long record, which sharp transition was a completely natural occurrence and could not have been due to CO2 (because the vast bulk of the modern CO2 rise has occurred over the past six decades). Aside from the above-mentioned event, the record displays considerable variability at multiple time scales, yet there is no obvious trend or indication that there is anything unusual, unnatural or unprecedented in recent years of the streamflow record that would indicate rising atmospheric CO2 is having an effect....Further analyses indicate these periodicities are likely natural in origin; they correspond well with and are likely significantly driven by ENSO, the Asian summer monsoon, and other large-scale climate circulation features."
Additional examples of research indicating little, if any, climate change attributes related to CO2 levels.
Climate doomsday snowflakes believe that snowflake storm intensity and frequency are increasing, due to man-made climate change from CO2 emissions.
To press there unsubstantiated claims, they even created new names - snowapocalypse, snowmageddon, snowzilla - for normal winter related weather events that used be called 'snowstorms' in more sane times.
Have CO2 emissions increased the intensity and frequency of modern era snowstorms versus the weather experience of the past?
Nope.
The adjacent graph represents the latest peer-reviewed research examining the historical record of large snowstorms over the past 1,000+ years in the Mediterranean region.
As the researchers documented, both the intensity and frequency of modern-era "snowpocalypses" are neither extraordinary nor exceptional when empirically analyzed in the full context of historical records.
"In particular, less snow fell during the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300) while snowfall was much more prevalent and severe thereafter during the Little Ice Age (~1300-1850), which latter era witnessed the two "snowiest" centuries of the past millennium (the 17th and 16th centuries). Milder conditions followed thereafter with reduced snowfall severity conditions occurring from the 18th century onward to today. And of the most recent decades, Diodato et al. say that "snow occurrences have remained unchanged," adding that "the recent reduction in Italian snowfall intensity is not unprecedented over the past millennium, since comparable patterns of low snowfall intensity also occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly.""
Another example of 'those pesky stubborn facts' obliterating the climate change doomsday cult's narrative.
Additional severe weather event graphs.
Climate change hysteria has frequently focused on Greenland's past ice sheet loss of both mass and area.
Two new peer-reviewed studies debunk, with the current empirical evidence, another climate doomsday scenario promulgated by the alarmist cult. Specifically, the doomsday prediction that heavily populated coastal regions will soon be submerged due to Greenland's ice melt.
In fact, the ice loss deceleration has reached the point where scientists are now using the term 'stabilized' in reference to the ice sheet conditions in Greenland.
“The period 2007–2012 underwent a rapid loss of glacier area, compared to 2013–2018, in which glacier area was relatively stable, associated with a small area change."
The documented and unexpected deceleration is believed to be a result of a decrease in solar short-wave radiation, due to the unexpected increasing cloud coverage over recent years in the Greenland region.
Both of these unexpected events were not predicted by the "sophisticated" climate models and the "experts."
Additional documented prediction failures.
The climate change prediction that increased atmospheric CO2 and resultant global warming would cause a greater frequency and stronger intensity of rainfall has long been a staple of CAGW doomsday alarmism.
But has it proven to be true?
A recent study, conducted for the northern India geographic region, found that the hypothesized significant impact on rainfall - due to CO2 emissions and global warming - is not evident.
"In a test of this hypothesis, Kant (2018) examined the precipitation records of four major weather stations in Uttar Pradesh, India, namely Bareilly, Allahabad, Lucknow and Babatpur, over the period 1969 to 2014"....."In contrast to model predictions, Kant reports that "rainfall of different intensities in yearly, monthly, June-September (monsoon) [periods] for all the four stations is not statistically significant." Thus, it would appear that neither the CO2 rise nor the temperature increase of the past four-and-a-half decades was sufficient to drive changes in hourly rainfall intensity in northern India."
Those stubborn facts just keep ruining the doomsday cult narrative.
Study after study has provided a multiplicity of evidence that the modern 21st century warming is not unprecedented, much to the chagrin and angst of elite alarmists and doomsday claimants.
Now we have a recent peer-reviewed study that examines 2,000 years of temperatures, which clearly reveals a past that indeed was warmer than present (see adjacent chart).
"Aside from the obvious millennial-scale climate oscillation seen in the temperature reconstruction, it is important to point out that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures on the southern Tibetan Plateau (STP). As indicated by the horizontal red line depicting the current temperature, there have been multiple times during the past two millennia when temperatures were warmer than present, including the 400 year period from 850-1250 AD, despite their being 50% less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. Because of this fact, it is clear that rising atmospheric CO2 is having little, if any, effect on current STP temperatures witnessed during the Current Warm Period."
"But if not CO2, what is or could be the cause of the 20th century warming? Based on additional analyses performed by Guo et al., it was their conclusion that changes in solar irradiance "played the most important role in influencing the climatic variabilities over the STP on a multi-centennial timescale.""
Conclusion: Mainstream media, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood celebrities continue to spread consensus anti-science claims in regards to the current global warming facts.
The politically correct sewer hole that the once premier science journal Nature has crawled into can no longer be contested.
Its recent publication of a study calling for a blacklist for collusion-censorship by mainstream media and science journals of contrarian scientific opinions and debate is now completely undeniable.
"Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal."
"What’s troubling is not enemies list,they’ve been around for a long time. What’s troubling is that they are now laundered by academic journals & used by scientists & journos to silence or otherwise cause professional harm to their peers. It is really amazing. And it works."
POST-MODERN WITCH HUNT: NATURE PUBLISHES BLACKLIST OF CRITICAL SCIENTISTS & WRITERS
Per recent multiple peer-reviewed studies, climate doomsday alarmists can no longer deny the scientific consensus: CO2 and global warming are returning the earth's biosphere to a green paradise of lush vegetation. (image source)
“Carbon‐climate interactions led to significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China.”
"Due especially to the rise in CO2 concentrations, 52% of the globe’s vegetated lands have shown statistically significant greening/gross primary production trends since 1981, whereas just 12% of vegetated areas have been browning. CO2’s greening effect has been underestimated by 60% with outdated models."
"Historical increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, from 280 to current 400 ppm, has resulted in enhanced GPP [gross primary production/greening] due to its radiative and physiological effects"
"Our central finding is, the effect of ambient CO2 concentration on terrestrial photosynthesis is larger than previously thought, and thus, has important implications for future carbon cycle and climate.”
“Climate change associated with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration may have impact on crop production and soil health. Increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration may enhance crop growth with higher demand for nutrients by the crop....Grain and biomass yield of rice was significantly higher under elevated CO2 condition."
“The relative top heights of the young [Ed: tree] stands [Ed: sessile oaks] were significantly higher than of the older stands, which means that the overall growing conditions were better in the last 30-35 years due to atmospheric changes..."
And humans, the industrial revolution, and economic prosperity deserve a robust round of applause from everyone.
A recent "study" by "scientists" playing with their computer climate model simulations guesses that there might be a future depth shift of the Southern Ocean carbonite event horizon based on simulated output from the model.
Editor Note: The aforementioned depth shift is speculated to occur when human emissions of CO2 infiltrate the ocean's waters, thus causing an acidifcation process associated with lower pH.
They report that maybe the ocean's pteropods species (a sea snail) will be harmed and may not be able to adapt.
The model output results do not seem to correlate well with known scientific facts..."Some estimate it began as early as 2006 in discrete locations, while others predict it will begin as late as 2038. The research suggests that the change may be inevitable..."
Their scientific conclusion from zero empirical evidence? "If that occurs, it could impact marine food webs significantly and lead to cascading changes across ocean ecosystems, including disruptions of vital global fisheries." And, "These factors put us closer to a threshold that might be harmful for a lot of organisms,."
In comparison to the above "scientists," there are scientists who actually conduct experiments to determine outcomes that are based on observed reality and not simulations.
For example, this 2018 study by 9 scientists determined that actual phytoplankton organisms, a major food source for the Southern Ocean ecosystem, were test for survival in waters with a lower pH - i.e. acidified waters. The scientists found the increased levels of CO2 "did not have a significant impact on the [phytoplankton] community, either individually or in combination with other factors,".
Then there is this study by 7 scientists who investigated the impact of different levels of elevated water CO2 on Southern Ocean adult krill, a crucial marine food staple for blue whales and other mammal species.
What did they find? "Ericson et al. state that "the measured physiological processes in adult Antarctic krill were robust to near-future ocean acidification (1000-2000 µatm pCO2)." In particular, they note that "the survival rate of krill subject to near-future pCO2 increased by up to 11%" and that such pCO2 levels "did not affect the size of adult krill," nor their ability to moult, grow, store fat or mature."
Getting back to the pteropods, this 2018 scientific study with the apt title, "Pteropods counter mechanical damage and dissolution through extensive shell repair", pretty much counters the pteropod doomsday scenario conjured up by the computer simulation jockeys.
The study's 5 scientists determined the following: ""the ability of L. helicina [pteropod] to repair shell damage in naturally undersaturated conditions indicates that this species has more potential to counteract the deleterious effects ocean acidification may have on their shells than previously considered." ...it adds "to the growing body of evidence that many polar calcifiers, exposed to undersaturated waters, can withstand and repair damage to their shells, perhaps on account of natural exposure to heightened physical and chemical variability, which have resulted in organisms developing or exhibiting an inherent resilience strategy.""
In summary, per the real-world science, the Southern Ocean food chain ecosystem appears not to be at risk for CO2 emissions.
One should remember that there is no computer simulation substitute for real scientific investigation and research.
Unfortunately, climate computer models have harmed the scientific endeavor and reputation with simulated doomsday results that have little basis in reality. It is our opinion, as we have stated before, policymakers across all forms of government should never rely on output from computer models - they are fundamentally flawed and promulgated by agenda-driven "scientists."
Central Asia represents a large swath of the globe's land area where one would expect that the "powerful" temperature impact of humanity's CO2 would be rather robust.
Although the area exhibited warming in the 20th century, it is not much different than earlier warming from periods centuries ago (see graph at bottom).
And there has been a recent late 20th century cooling that is attributed to natural factors.
"[T]he recent cool-moist period from 1985 to 2000 has been related to the Arctic Oscillation...During this recent cool-moist period, ice mass accumulation of the glaciers in the Russian Altai Mountains was observed and Narozhniy and Zemtsov (2011) connected this phenomenon to annual precipitation increased by 8% – 10% especially in winter and spring (April-May) as a result of a strengthening of the zonal circulation over the Altai Mountains.”
Conclusion: Those stubborn facts again get in the way of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doomsday claims. Central Asia's warming and cooing during both the past and modern era look to be more a function of natural volcano variations and ocean oscillations.
Acidification of ocean waters from human CO2 emissions has raised concerns that aquatic life would be severely impacted. Yet, actual studies testing acidification levels on different species more often than not reveal that sea life is not impaired.
Adding to that empirical evidence is a new study on Atlantic salmon smolt.
"In a test of the above hypothesis, McCormick and Regish examined "the effect of future ocean acidification on the salinity tolerance and early seawater growth of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts."..."Results of the analysis, in the words of the authors, revealed that "ocean acidification will not negatively affect the survival and ion regulatory ability [and, hence, salinity tolerance] of S. salar smolts," Furthermore, McCormick and Regish add that "rather than have a detrimental effect, ocean acidification conditions may actually improve the growth of S. salar in the first 2 weeks after seawater exposure." With respect to this latter parameter, Figure 1 graphically portrays the mean specific growth rates of the fish inhabiting the two seawater pH regimes, revealing 40 percent higher specific growth rates of Atlantic salmon in the ocean acidification treatment compared to ambient seawater pH."
Possible conclusion: CO2 makes for very happy fish.
Green Renewables: It's all about the Benjamins.
Every country that has attempted to force solar and wind energy sources on their national grid have all discovered the same thing: the cost of retail electricity jumps with the consumer being the ultimate chump that has to fork over more money to the providers.
Study out of University of Chicago has determined the same result happened in the 29 U.S. states that imposed Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).
"RPS "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write."..."All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,"
And the money flowing out of consumer wallets - for dubious climate change "improvements" - will only keep climbing faster as renewable % goals are increased.
And making the pain even worse for consumers. is the following comment from the researchers:
"But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that "the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon."
That last comment indicates the massive stupidity of today's virtue signaling politicians who could care less about the real impacts on society and constituents when imposing regulatory schemes that have been proven failures wherever implemented.
What many journalists and politicians do not realize is that climate change warming is not global. At any given time, there are regions of the world that are warming, while at the same time other regions are either cooling or exist within a stable temperature range.
An example of the actual real-world climate regime is the South China Sea denoted by the accompanying chart.
A group of researchers from China produced a better methodology to reconstruct a historical dataset of sea temperatures for the month of March from 1893-2011.
The findings from their research?
"...above-average temperatures occurred in 1904-1913, 1929-1948, 1961-1973 and 1991-2006. Below-average temperatures, on the other hand, occurred in 1914-1925, 1949-1960, 1979-1990 and 2007-2011. What is particularly insightful about the reconstruction, however, is the absence of any apparent anthropogenic influence on the 119-year record of SST variability. In fact, there appears to be nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures. Indeed, temperatures of the past four decades have remained relatively stable over the whole length of the record."
And on the other side of the world, we have the example of a cooling Ireland, which clearly seems to have missed this "global warming" that everyone in media, Hollywood, and D.C. continuously claim - obviously, without ever checking the actual evidence.
But, don't hold your breath expecting either the mainstream media or politicians or celebrities pushing the climate change alarmism to inform the public that "global warming" is not truly global.
Both higher and lower temperature spans during pre-industrial periods are evident in the boreal forested areas of Quebec, Canada.
"Hoping to provide some additional knowledge of Holocene climate fluctuations in the boreal region of north-eastern Canada, the six researchers thus developed a new summer temperature proxy by analyzing chironomid assemblages from lake sediment cores obtained from Lac Aurelié. The new record spanned 8200 years with an average temporal resolution of 45 years."
During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, temperatures were approximately 0.9°C warmer than now; and during the Medieval Warming Period, temperatures were about 1.0°C higher than in modern era.
The Little Ice Age period from the 1400's to 1800's had summer temperatures cooler than modern era by 2.1°C.
"In light of the above findings, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current summer temperatures in central Quebec, which fall well within the range of natural variability for this area."
The mainstream journalists have been reporting over the last 20 years that global warming was dangerously accelerating due to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2.
They reported that this rapid temperature elevation would bring untold climate change disaster and calamity to humanity - per the climate model based speculations - if we did not cease using the fossil fuels that produced the CO2.
Yet, despite growing emissions that now surpass 400 ppm in the atmosphere, at the end of 2018, according to HadCrut annual global temperature dataset, the globe warmed by a measly +0.056°C since 1998 - not even a tenth of a degree over 20 years.
A nothing-burger.
(Note: see the +0.056°C increase on adjacent thermometer where the small white dots represent the 1998 temperature.)
If that 20-year amount of "warming" is repeated every 20 years, then by the end of 100 years, global warming would have increased a barely measurable +0.3°C degree. This is not your AOC's warming that will end the world in a short 12 years.
In addition, the last 20 years of actual warming does not match well with the predicted warming from the most sophisticated climate models' compilation. For the 20 years ending 2018, the models' approximate mean estimate of global warming is +0.50°C .
Thus, the expert predicted warming is roughly 8 times greater than actual.
All of the above tells one that actual warming has not been either extreme or dangerous.
This has been literally worry-free warming over the last 2 decades notwithstanding the climate model scenarios of excessive near-death-warming that must be upon us.
Besides the recent actual tiny warming, there also have been multiple peer-reviewed studies published over the last 12 months that establish catastrophic global warming to be more science fiction than scientific reality. For example:
The Disappearance of March Heatwaves
SUMMARY: There exists no empirical evidence, nor research studies based on actual empirical evidence, indicating that humanity is being threatened by disastrous warming or associated climate change manifestations. On the contrary, real world indications are that natural climate changes do occur but they do not amount to the claimed existential menace, even with the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases. These facts confirm that proposed billions to trillions of American's dollars should not be spent on unproven and highly controversial attempts to fix what amounts to non-threatening global "warming" and mild climate "change."
From this recent article, the main takeaways from 2019 study are:
Climate science alarmists are devastated by these findings and are scrambling to smear its scientific authors rather than challenge the empirical evidence, one would imagine.
Then again, possibly the alarmists will finally admit defeat by accepting the skeptical AGW viewpoint - that CO2 is not the dominant forcing in climatic trends, it is a minor one at best.
The authors of this study assess the likely reason for the cooling as being a natural climate change phenomenon from one of the known natural oscillations/cycles.
This study should again confirm that current climate predictions from "experts" and their computer models have been fabulously wrong.
Conclusion: Politicians and bureaucrats should table any discussions and regulations in regards to actual climate and energy policies, since the assumptions and hypothesis being utilized are clearly without scientific merit.
There is the following science consensus: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically validated outside the confines of a computer simulation.
Essentially, across many parts of the world, the lack of warming and the lack of unusual warming - i.e. unprecedented, exceptional warming - confirms that the fear of human CO2-driven catastrophic warming is likely very misplaced.
Similar to the recent scientific findings of unexceptional modern warming for many parts of the world, such as in the U.S., across Antarctica, and multiple other regions of the world, scientists in China have analyzed a 350+ year climate record and found modern warming is not unusual versus the warming of earlier periods in the record.
"In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST."
The scientists also determined that human CO2 was not a factor driving the warming and cooling analyzed.
"Accompanied by significant peaks at 60.2 and 73 years, the continuously periodicities around 49–114 years in our regional temperature reconstruction might tentatively be related to PDO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation...as well as solar activity...The AMO was an important driver of multidecadal variations in summer climate not only in North America and western Europebut also in the East Asia...The 60.2-year peak associated with AMO demonstrated that multidecadal variations in late summer temperature in the NWSP NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be controlled by AMO."
This 2016 study from China adds to the enormous amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that an all encompassing modern "global" warming from human CO2 does not exist.
The scientific evidence is unequivocal: There exist huge regional climate swaths of the globe that have mildly warmed in an unexceptional manner during the modern industrial/consumer era; and there exist multiple large areas that even lack any regional climate-significant modern warming whatsoever.
Additional modern global and regional temperature charts; and historical temperature charts.
Simply stated: Slim to none.
Experts in sea level research did a focused analysis on the predicted sea level projections for California by activist groups. These groups are suggesting that sea level rise could be as much as 3 meters by year 2100 due to human CO2 emission release into the atmosphere.
This peer-reviewed study - from experts not associated with an activist agenda group(s) - determined that the alarmist predictions of dramatic increases of California sea levels 'hold no water'.
This chart is from their study analysis, along with the below stinging rebuttal to the activist groups.
"In summing up these and other of their several findings, Parker and Ollier write that "the evidences from real sea level measurements do not support the IPCC models or the even more alarming predictions [made by the National Research Council and California Ocean Science Trust]. The latter, "they continue, "are founded on pure speculation, constructed on unproven assumptions, and do not provide a suitable basis for use in planning or policy making.""
Prior sea level articles.
Climate simulation models have proven to be unreliable when their predictions, scenarios, projections, etc. are compared to the observed climate realities. A recent example is in regards to the waters surrounding Antarctica.
The Southern Ocean is comprised of 5 sub-regions. This study reviewed the empirical evidence of sea ice extent and found that 4 of the 5 sub-regions experienced an expanded sea ice extent and the Southern Ocean overall did likewise. The study confirms the growing scientific consensus that sea ice has increased since 1979.
In contrast to the climate models and their prognostications, these scientific observations of climate reality are opposite of what the models expected.
"Whatever the true cause or causes, one thing is certain, all of the climate models have failed to predict the observed increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent. Rather, as reported in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CO2-induced global warming is supposed to reduce its extent by an average of between 16 and 67 percent in the summer and 8 to 30 percent in the winter by the end of the century (IPCC, 2013). Clearly, therefore, something must be fundamentally wrong with the climate models, for their predictions to be so far off from the observed sea ice trends."
Since climate models are dependent on the CO2 greenhouse gas being a major driving force in the simulations, it is not a surprise to those familiar with the subject that the simulated outputs continue to be deeply flawed.
Additional climate model and failed prediction articles.
Does the empirical evidence support the belief that human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere will directly cause an increase in forest fires from global warming?
As the above plots show, whether it's the U.S. national forests or the state owned properties in fire-prone California, the number of fires incidents has significantly declined starting with the 1980s. This has taken place during 50 years of the largest growth of atmospheric CO2 levels - the largest possibly for millions of years.
The chart plots are from the recent extensive peer-reviewed study published by forestry researchers.
"Both USFS and Cal Fire protected lands had the lowest number of fires in the early record but ignitions began to increase in the1960s and peaked between 1970 and 1990, subsequently declining on both USFS and Cal Fire lands. ... Major fires are dependent on the juxtaposition of such weather events with anthropogenic ignitions. Future fire regimes will be less affected by global warming than by other global changes, in particular population growth, because over 95% of ignitions are due to humans. As populations increase we expect a greater chance of ignitions during severe fire weather conditions."
In addition, the subject of forest fire devastation was recently re-analyzed using entirely different data. And further back, 'C3' and others have published multiple examinations of the available empirical evidence - here, here, here, here, here, here, here.
Prediction FactCheck Verdict: Fail
The expert and climate model predictions of CO2 and global warming wreaking fire havoc upon forested areas is absolutely without convincing empirical evidence. All facts point to an overall improvement in the count and extent of forest fire destruction since the peak destruction experienced during the early decades of the 20th century.
Additional fire and other weather phenomenon charts, failed-prediction articles, and peer-reviewed articles.
Note: Decade-end atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed on graphs from the 2017 Keely & Syphard study.
The case of the dissolving starfish: Often, the actual science regarding research studies is misreported by the institutions - i.e. academia - that publish press releases on studies they have sponsored, which then the journalists spread and propagandize for their readers and viewers
A recent example of misreporting are the "scientific" news stories based on a study's press release that increased ocean acidification, presumably from human CO2 emissions, was dissolving the poor coastal starfish population.
Turns out, per an analysis of what this latest starfish scientific study actually stated, the research said nothing of the sort.
The news stories about the dissolving starfish represent reporting practice that is frequent and purposefully designed to mislead the public and policymakers.
In contrast, when ocean acidification research is well-conducted and well-reported, the opposite conclusion about the impact of lower pH levels is usually the result.
An example is a recent ocean acidfication study of the impact on a starfish relative, the lowly sea urchin.
"In light of these several findings, the Australian, New Zealand and U.S. researchers felt safe in stating that the sea urchins "did not only persist but actually 'thrived' under extreme conditions." And why was this so? Uthicke et al. opine that it was because (6) "increased algal productivity under increased pCO2 [Ed: increasing water acidification] provided more food at the vent, resulting in higher growth rates." And in light of this likelihood, they conclude their paper by stating that the processes they studied "are best identified in natural settings ... where ecosystems and individuals are exposed throughout their life to conditions similar to those in future oceans.""
Unfortunately, the journalistic practice of relying on questionable press releases is widespread, thus leading "journalists" to embellish and promulgate fake science and, of course, leading to ludicrous fear-mongering. The case of the "dissolving starfish" is a classic example.
Previous articles about peer-reviewed science and articles about questionable journalism.
What does the science say in regards to the effect of elevated CO2 on major food sources across the globe?
It is well known that airborne CO2 acts as a vegetation fertilizer, which fortunately for the world, has produced a vast 'greening' of nature. Some 70% of greening is attributed to increased CO2 fertilization say the NASA researchers.
In regards to agriculture crops, a new study has again determined that increased CO2 will produce greater yields.
This peer-reviewed study focused of rice and maize.
"Rice is the most consumed staple crop in the world and maize is close behind in rank as the third most important cereal crop. Their annual yields are consumed by billions of persons worldwide.....Pingale et al. report that elevated CO2 positively influenced the growth and productivity of both crops. Plant growth and yield parameters such as leaf area, stem dry weight, panicle dry weight, cob dry weight and grain number per cob were all significantly increased under elevated CO2. And the end result of these several enhancements was a CO2-induced increase in both rice and maize grain yield."
The included column chart from the study depicts the yield increases for both crops.
Prior articles regarding peer-reviewed studies and greenhouse gases.
Expert predictions about the negative impacts of climate change on bird populations are assessed in this study.
The scientists investigated the bird species that populate the mountain habitats of the Pacific Northwest. These habitats are considered by wildlife experts to be "among the most immediately susceptible to [the] effects of climate change."
Was the "expert" prediction correct that modern climate change (i.e., global warming) would have a significant negative impact on bird specie populations?
In fact, this peer-reviewed analysis determined that modern climate change was not negatively impacting these vulnerable habitats and bird populations.
".....the team of ten researchers conducted a total of 8404 point-count surveys at 3177 distinct survey point locations across the three parks during the breeding seasons of 2005-2014. From those surveys, 39 species (24 migratory and 15 "residents" that overwinter in the parks) were identified for population stability analyses."....."all but one species were either stable or increasing across the sampled points in the three parks" throughout the period of study (see Figure 1 below). Furthermore, the authors say they "found little evidence for upslope range shifts across the sampled region," adding that "no species increased at higher elevations while declining at lower elevations."
Based on this study's results, one could surmise that modern climate change has been of benefit to the bird species in the Pacific Northwest.
There was climate change.
There is climate change.
And there will be climate change.
This peer-reviewed study produced the adjacent charts for the regional area of the American Southwest.
Although the study was primarily about climate modeling for future climate variability, it was focused on the severe climate variation of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
The charts provide ample factual proof, along with the study's own premise, that our modern climate change is not unprecedented.
Whether it be drought conditions or temperature extremes, the past climate was anything but stable.
Note that the bottom chart shows the modern recent warming (RW) finally returning to the levels of around 1000AD and the extended Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) period.
Simply stated: facts don't lie, and there is nothing humans can do to stop natural climate change; and, the extremes it produces without any help from CO2.
Additional historical charts.
China must not have gotten the climate model memo that all hailstorms were ordered to be more severe and to produce a greater amount of damage.
Those "expert" climate models tell us what is supposed to happen in the world's climate due to the impact of human-induced global warming. Yet it seems that the models as climate soothsayers of severe weather events are essentially worthless.
Case in point, a new peer-reviewed study has examined the factual evidence regarding the increased frequency and increased intensity of hail storms that CO2-centric, global warming climate models predict; and the study has found the predictions to be without merit.
"A test of this model-based hypothesis was recently performed by Ni et al. (2017) for China. Using data from 2,254 locations that they obtained from the Chinese National Meteorological Information Center, the eight researchers examined trends in both the occurrence of hail days (frequency) and the mean size of hail (intensity) over the period 1980-2015"..."Ni et al. conclude that these observational changes "imply a weakened [frequency and] intensity of hailstorms in China in recent decades." And that finding does not bode well for climate models, which predict that just the opposite should be occurring."
The study's graphs depict that over the last 35 years the large-sized hail stones that wreak the most havoc on property and agriculture have been trending smaller, not larger across all recorded storms from the reporting 2,254 weather stations.
In addition, during the same extended period, the proportion of all hail storms that produce the extremely large stones has been clearly trending down.
ScienceCheck Conclusion: Climate models can't predict squat.
Frankly, little, if any, emission impact on present climate change based on new Chinese peer-reviewed research.
The chart on the left represents a 341-year proxy temperature reconstruction for the southwest region of China.
Clearly, unprecedented temperatures occurred during the mid to late 1700s. This record shows that modern temperatures, which supposedly have been influenced by human emissions, are yet to rival temperatures from much earlier periods.
Also, one can discern a cyclical pattern that the study's scientists attributed to nature climate oscillations - trace greenhouse gases do not explain this periodical climate pattern.
The chart on the right represents a 500-year streamflow analysis for a western region of China.
Again, a pattern of constant change, from low to high to low, appears to be due to natural climate variations. The late 20th and early 21st century observations seem remarkably similar to those in the distant past, suggesting that Co2 emissions are not a factor influencing streamflow.
Fact Check: As these two studies from China indicate, modern industrial/consumer emissions from fossil fuels are not a major component of climate change. This research adds to the huge compilation of prior peer-reviewed studies that confirm modern climate change is not out of the ordinary, and highly likely due to natural causes, not human-induced as speculated my many.
"Reef-building corals thrive within hot-acidified and deoxygenated waters".
That is the title of a recently published peer-reviewed scientific study.
And that title pretty much sums up the study findings that corals exposed to greater natural extremes prosper as well as those exposed to less harsh conditions.
Be it extreme water temperatures, extreme acidity, and/or extreme deoxygenation, corals exhibit a real world adaptability to survive and thrive that is in contrast to long-held dogma of laboratory researchers.
CO2science.org has an informative write-up of the study, including the adjacent charts and the below summation.
"Consequently, in light of all of the above, it would be wise for policy makers to give more consideration to the impacts of ocean acidification and warming as observed from natural environment analogs as opposed to more restrictive laboratory based analyses. And when such consideration is given, it appears that corals are well equipped to deal with future changes in their environment, be they naturally or anthropogenically induced."
Of course, popular doomsday prophets continue to badger policymakers and the public with frightful scenarios that human CO2 emissions will destroy, or already have destroyed, the planet's coral reefs.
Yet, the growing volume of actual scientific research, such as this highlighted study, clearly refutes the falsity of such alarmist prophecies.
The below link list of coral reef articles, which examine recent research and empirical evidence refuting the popularized orthodox doom-dogma; and have been completely ignored by MSM fake-news operations since they prove the fear-mongering is nothing more than that.
These listed reviews of scientific research and analyses indisputably destroy the "97% consensus" alarmism that anti-science prophets of doom spew, including that of Al Gore, Cameron Diaz, Bill McKibben, Emma Watson, Obama, Leo DiCaprio, Chuck Schumer, Jessica Alba, Mark Ruffalo, Pharrell Williams, Michael Mann, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other celebrities.
In essence, these celebrity "experts" essentially repeat simple scare-mongering of global warming and climate change without the merits of any known empirical evidence research. Again, they actually spew anti-science.
Besides the selection of 2017 article titles noted above, there is an abundance of peer-reviewed studies stretching back over the years in regards to coral scientific research that debunks coral reef alarmism.
Additional 'C3' articles of peer-reviewed research.
Worm greenhouse emissions (primarily methane) from our global ocean sediment buddies could lead to that proverbial tipping point - initiating a runaway global warming and catastrophic climate change scenario.
"The findings, which have been published in the journal Scientific Reports, point to a so far neglected source of greenhouse gases in the sea and could have a profound impact on decision makers."
One wonders if this is the missing causal link that climate models need to incorporate in order to address their continued prediction failure?
Included in this simply remarkable study are the methane emissions of clams. Certainly, the gaseous output from these two sea creatures will be disastrous for the world.
It should be obvious that these scientists need a lot more $$$ funding to determine the total extent of global ocean farting, which as they say:
"...implying that globally, apparently harmless bivalve animals at the bottom of the world’s oceans may in fact be contributing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for.”...“These small yet very abundant animals may play an important, but so far neglected, role in regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases in the sea.”
And then there is certainly the expensive research needed to determine if land-based worms, as pictured above, are another doomsday greenhouse culprit. If yes, big monies will be required to fund Monsanto so that a new class of global-warming pesticides can be brought to market in time to save civilization and our human species.
Or, like so many other climate "science" studies, maybe this one also isn't worth a fart.
Yet another study confirms the increased heart risk due to cold weather spells.
The study reviewed Catalonia emergency room admissions of those with cardiovascular events during both heat waves and cold waves. The total number of heart incidents was substantially higher during periods of cold versus warm/hot weather.
Per the study's analysis:
"...they used the self-controlled case series statistical methodology to assess the relative incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of hospitalizations during the hot and cold waves in comparison to reference time periods with normal temperature exposure. Heat waves were defined as a period of at least 3 days in July and August in which the daily maximum temperatures were higher than the 95th percentile of daily maximum temperature for those two months. Cold waves were similarly defined as periods of at least 3 days in January and February when daily minimum temperatures were lower than the 95th percentile of daily minimum temperatures for those two months. IRRs were adjusted for age, time interval and air pollution. The number of hospitalizations due to cardiovascular diseases during January and February over the period of study was 22,611, whereas there were only 17,017 during July and August."
The red outline rectangle in the above image reveals the much reduced number of cardiovascular events during warmer weather.
Couple the increased cardiovascular incidence during the cold months along with the increased incidence of influenza/colds/pneumonia during the same periods, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that any type of global climate warming brings welcome relief from major health concerns and potential death due to the hands of colder temperature weather.
"And this being the case, perhaps we should all pray for a little global warming."
Additional peer-reviewed studies regarding health benefits of warmer weather and climates.
A new focused effort by a team of researchers analyzed 26 decades of hurricane activity, covering the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) through 2012 for the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico water regions.
As most scientists agree, be they orthodox or skeptic, the world has been modestly warming since the end of the LIA.
Yet the proponents of global warming alarmism "science" have claimed that severe weather, such as hurricanes, has increased dramatically due to this rather modest warming.
These expert claims were primarily based on simulations from climate models (and less so on the actual empirical evidence) which has become a sure fire methodology of producing bass-ackwards fake science.
This new empirical study presents the evidence from the last 260 years of hurricane activity and the result is irrefutable as the adjacent chart reveals. Not only has hurricane activity not increased across the wide areas examined, the activity has actually been on a slow declining trend.
"In their intriguing analysis published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, the four-member research team of Rojo-Garibaldi et al. developed a new database of historical hurricane occurrences in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, spanning twenty-six decades over the period 1749 to 2012. Statistical analysis of the record revealed "the hurricane number is actually decreasing in time," which finding is quite stunning...as the Mexican research team indicates, "when analyzing the entire time series built for this study, i.e., from 1749 to 2012, the linear trend in the number of hurricanes is decreasing"."
What truly makes this a head-exploding study for celebrity "scientists" is not only the fact the findings are the opposite of what they predicted, but that this Mexican scientific team tied the decline to natural solar events, not human CO2 emissions. (See more information on the study.)
Additional peer-reviewed articles and severe-weather charts.
It is unequivocally true that climate change, both mild and extreme, is always happening - paleoclimatology research evidence establishes that.
There is no debate that climate change existed prior to humans' impact on Earth, and will continue regardless of whether human CO2 emissions persist or cease.
Scientists continue to investigate past climate change events to better understand modern climate change, including extreme drought.
Case in point: scientists recently published peer-reviewed research that identified extreme drought periods on Canada's Vancouver Island, specifically the British Columbia Tsable River region.
Their research confirmed that since 1520AD, and prior to the instrumental record, extreme droughts took place that were of equal severity to those of modern droughts.
"Severe summer streamflow droughts are impacting many watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Small coastal basins that are the primary water source for most communities and essential to Pacific salmon populations have been particularly affected...Explaining 63% of the instrumental streamflow variability...Our findings suggest that since 1520, 21 droughts occurred that were more extreme than recent “severe” events like those in 2003 and 2009. Recent droughts are therefore not anomalous relative to the ~400 year pre-instrumental record.....The influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on instrumental and modeled Tsable River summer streamflow is likely linked to the enhanced role of snowmelt in determining summer discharge during cool phases."
Past extreme drought events are clear examples of continuous natural climate change that the modern era cannot escape. Humans do not cause climate change, it just happens.
Previous drought and climate-history articles. Link to above image.
Fortunately, the Titanic only sunk once because engineers and navigators did not continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
But "experts" and climate models provide a never-ending loop of sinking and re-floating of a wide assortment of climate change predictions, forecasts and scenarios.
The weather/climate researchers seem unable to embrace the humility and reality that their computer simulation predictions rarely stay afloat for any length of time before being sent down to deep and cold watery graves.
A recent noteworthy example of a failed prediction is the Hurricane Matthew event.
More specifically, climate model output has been predicting that CO2-induced global warming and climate change would produce more frequent, and more intense, cyclones/hurricanes that would continuously terrorize many coastal populations.
Yet those frightening predictions keep doing a 'Titanic' on the expert model forecasts.
And actually, there is a logical reason for that happening: climate models can't predict squat.
Per the latest peer-reviewed scientific research:
"...Camargo and Wing write that (5) "efforts on modeling improvements, from convective parameterizations to new numerical methods and dynamical cores, also need to continue to occur." And "most of all," as they continue, they say that (6) "what is needed is a better theoretical understanding of what sets the frequency of TCs," noting that (7) "we could make much more confident climate change projections if we had a firmer theoretical expectation of what should happen."
"In conclusion, therefore, they state that (8) "despite the recent advances, there is still need for a substantial community effort to improve simulation of TCs in climate models on all time scales."
Essentially, even after burning through multi-billions of taxpayer monies, the models still can't predict squat due to the inescapable fact that experts require a "firmer theoretical expectation of what should happen."
Message to Trump from climate scientists: "We don't know what we're doing but please send more money anyways, ASAP!"
Previous peer-reviewed and failed-prediction articles.
Extreme weather incidents - i.e. disastrous flooding from extreme precipitation - has always existed ... and well before the introduction of human industrial/consumer CO2 emissions ... the name Noah rings a bell, yes?
Much research has been done on determining the connection between solar activity and weather/climate conditions.
Studies investigating the relationship between the sun and flooding continue to be pursued. The newest research examined solar forcing and the floods of central Europe using river discharge data and varved sediments.
The peer-reviewed findings:
The three researchers discovered that flood frequency in both records is significantly correlated to changes in two types of solar activity," namely, (1) "the solar Schwabe cycle" and (2) "multi-centennial oscillations." And they thus further conclude that (3) "the unexpected direct response of variations in River Ammer flood frequency to changes in solar activity might suggest that the solar top-down mechanism is of particular relevance for hydroclimate extremes.
This study determined that flooding frequency over 5,500 years was tied to solar activity across inter-annual and multi-centennial timescales.
Clearly, CO2 emissions and other human influences are not a prerequisite for extreme precipitation and the resulting flood disasters.
Prior severe weather/climate research and peer-reviewed articles.
The consensus alarmist-scientist community has again been discomforted with new empirical evidence that confirms the findings of past research done by scientists skeptical of human-caused catastrophic global warming.
The new study, officially published in a publication from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows:
"....that water conserved by plants under high CO2 conditions compensates for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, retaining more water on land than predicted in commonly used drought assessments....the implications of plants needing less water with more CO2 in the environment changes assumptions of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and plant growth..."New satellite observations and improvements in our understanding hydrological cycle have led to significant advances in our ability to model changes in soil moisture," said Randerson. "Unfortunately, using proxy estimates of drought stress can give us misleading results because they ignore well-established principles from plant physiology."."
And ...,
"Recent studies have estimated that more than 70 percent of our planet will experience more drought as carbon dioxide levels quadruple from pre-industrial levels over about the next 100 years. But when researchers account for changes in plants' water needs, this falls to 37 percent, with bigger differences concentrated in certain regions."
You read that right. The "consensus" scientists were forced to cut almost in half climate models' simulated drought impact on the world's plant life when the actual empirical evidence was properly analyzed.
Of course, despite the contrary findings of this study, the article reminds readers that hypothetical fearmongering from computer simulations is still acceptable, such as:
"Is this good news for climate change? Although the drying may be less extreme than in some current estimates, droughts will certainly increase, researchers said, and other aspects of climate change could have severe effects on vegetation."
Image source. Prior postings regarding failed consensus predictions.
It would seem, despite the extreme denial of most anti-CO2 activists and UN bureaucrats, that the climate has always changed, frequently making dramatic shifts.
Even producing big shifts prior to the major morphing to a greenhouse gas emitting industrial/consumer society.
Despite the immense treasure of climate change empirical and anecdotal evidence of time past compiled by dedicated researchers, scientists are still conducting new research to delineate the scope and breadth of past changes.
This latest research, done by a group of European scientists, focused on the Northern Hemisphere's hydroclimatology responses to temperature change over 12 centuries. Their findings included:
"...report that (1,2) "proxy evidence does not support the tendency in simulations for wet regions to become wetter and dry regions drier in a warmer climate," that (3) their "hydroclimate reconstruction does not support a general unprecedented intensification of the hydrological cycle in the twentieth century, associated with both more extreme wet and dry conditions, as simulated by an ensemble of models," and that (4) "this finding is in line with recent analyses of instrumental data reporting limited evidence for an intensification of wet and dry anomalies under current global warming,"." Nature 532: 10.1038/nature17418.
In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).
Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions - and Exxon - are not to blame.
Prior articles on historical climate change.
The mountain of failed predictions and significant flip-flops seems to be never ending when it comes to climate change experts.
For years they predicted (i.e. carelessly speculated) that a warming climate would increase the incidence of the nasty dengue fever disease.
But now researchers are reporting that the incidence of the disease could actually be reduced with warming climate change.
“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,” said Dr Harley, an epidemiology researcher at the ANU Research School of Population Health. ... The findings are also relevant to other mosquito-borne viruses including Zika because the mosquitoes that carry dengue also transmit the Zika virus. ... “There is significant concern in countries on the margin of the tropical areas where dengue is mainly found, that with global warming dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses such as Zika will encroach and become common,” Dr Harley said. ... “Previous projections have suggested that climate change will increase transmission of mosquito-borne diseases globally. ... “Our work, using a mathematical model based on Queensland conditions, suggests that dengue transmission might decrease with greater warming.”
Naturally, this is good news that all global warming alarmists should embrace, with the exception of a single caveat regarding the study that should give pause. This latest flip-flop was based on a computer model, which is quite simply, nothing but simulated research using limited empirical evidence.
Previous failed-prediction and peer-reviewed articles.
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.
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.
