MIT informs us that the "experts" are even clueless as to how much oil is being globally stored.
Yet, supposedly, the experts know how much fossil fuel is burned each year by each country, as well as supposedly knowing how many metric tonnes of CO2 emissions are being emitted to atmosphere.
Color it highly doubtful.
One thinks that the "settled" science of fossil fuel global warming - i.e. climate change - is based on a "huge amount of guesswork" and is actually very unsettled.
NOAA/NCDC has long been associated with fabricated global warming ..... in a way, they must aspire to be identified as the epitome of manipulative, anti-science methodologies.
From time to time, NOAA also exhibits the typical your-federal-govt-at-work "competence".
On their 'Climate-At-A-Glance' (CAG) web site, NOAA reports that the contiguous U.S. has been cooling at a rate of -0.6°F per century since January 1, 1994 (see pink rectangle on image). That's a 258-month period.
Surprise! Color me a skeptic.
Per the monthly absolute temperatures and anomalies that NOAA reports for the period from Jan 1994 to June 2015, there does not appear to be any obvious means to calculate a cooling trend. In fact, using the CAG supplied NOAA dataset for temperatures during that period, there is a warming trend of 1.68°F, calculated using Excel's slope function for a linear trend.
Indeed, from the same NOAA reported data, there is a U.S. cooling trend but it does not start until February 1996. Using either NOAA's reported 'Climate-At-A-Glance' absolutes or anomalies, that trend is a -2.28°F for the 19.4 year period (233 months).
The more recent reporting from NOAA is hardly an improvement - from 2010 thru June 2015 they are reporting a -44.33°F per century cooling trend. Ummm...I don't think so.
It's highly doubtful that NOAA will be on the airwaves anytime soon discussing a -44 degree cooling trend when they're required to scream "it's-the-hottest-ever" constantly.
Summary: "Ashville, we have a problem." Okay, is this a function of just a very poorly designed web page that simply misleads the public? Or, a reporting system with really bad quality control efforts? Or competence, maybe lack thereof? Or, a management team totally distracted by their political agenda priorities prior to Paris 2015? Or, yet another successful Chinese hack penetrating government "security"?
So, Watts Up With That uses this image along with an article delineating the excuses given so far for the 'Pause' and failures of the inaccurate climate models.
The list currently stands at a 10-count. But it's very likely to go higher in the near future, no?
#11. ???
#10. Low solar activity means less warming
#9. Warming is "hiding" in the deepest realms of the world's oceans
#8. Pollutants from Chinese coal burning blocked the warming
#7. The unintended consequences of Montreal Protocol for ozone has slowed warming
#6. Too few Arctic weather stations are reporting the predicted warming
#5. Major Minor volcanic eruptions somehow are now blocking warming
#4. Unexpected decrease of water vapor in the stratosphere slows global warming trend
#3. The changing, anti-warming Pacific's trade winds not anticipated in global climate change models
#2. Climate signals from stadium wave phenomenon interrupted predicted global warming pattern
#1. Leading government climate "experts" put it all down as "coincidence"
Now this list provides overwhelming evidence that consensus climate scientists and major government climate agencies agree this extended 'Pause' took place and continues.
Yet despite this scientific agreement, there are still those fanatical GWNs who continue to push the jihad of anti-science, scaremongering propaganda ... along with an overabundance of extremist threats.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
Conclusions:
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
#5. The spectacular documented failure of climate agency computer models is likely due to the erroneous (i.e., overly high) sensitivity parameters,
#6. 100% of climate scientists would agree that the current empirical evidence does not support the proclaimed runaway, tipping point acceleration that was supposedly taking place. ;-)
Additional modern temperature and climate-model charts.
(click image to enlarge, image source of one, two, three)
...and finally, global warming skeptics believe, for a multitude of reasons, human errors/mistakes/failings have caused late 20th century global warming to be significantly overstated.
This article addresses this last point. What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world-wide warming being overstated?
Well, NOAA has actually conducted said experiment by building their U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which precisely, and automatically, measures temperature and weather conditions across the U.S. The USCRN effort is based on the concept that the best way to measure the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures is to place state-of-the-art climate stations in pristine rural areas that are little impacted by people, buildings, vehicles, equipment, asphalt and etc.
An example of one of NOAA's pristine climate measurement stations is the top image (Image #1). And the middle image depicts the location of each pristine station - there are currently 114 of them, and clearly they are well dispersed providing good U.S. coverage.
By carefully planning and maintaining these pristine stations and by using the best technology available, this large-scale experiment eliminates the following problems with the older weather measurement network:
So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story - when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature "warming" in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months.
To clarify, this range of overstatement depends on the given new and old stations being compared. However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1°F higher than the actual temperatures.
What does this mean? Within the climate science realm, the old climate/weather station system had long been considered the best and most complete measurement network in the world. But when pitted against a brand new climate measurement system that has the best qualities that science can provide, we find that the traditional U.S. methodology is significantly overstating the "global warming" phenomenon. This means that if other countries replaced their own low quality network with NOAA's greatest and latest technology, with the best location site standards applied, we would discover that world-wide temperature increases have been wildly overstated also.
Conclusions: A large-scale NOAA experiment has proven that global warming skeptics were correct: temperature warming in the U.S. has been significantly overstated in recent decades. This NOAA experiment should be expanded to other continents and countries since it is now obvious that the combined older technology and substandard weather station sites have well overstated the global warming phenomenon. Before any further dollars are spent on climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, the world needs to upgrade their global weather/climate reporting network to the USCRN standard so that policymakers have correct temperature change mesurements to base their decisions on.
Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts.
(image source)
Read here (h/t Bishop Hill). The elites of the world are amazingly gullible, and because of the "elite" consensus, they remain stuck-on-perpetual-stupidity. The never-ending financial meltdown and debt crisis that keeps disrupting the global economy is a clear indication of this phenomenon.
And it appears scientists are no different.
A recent experiment confirms that scientists, due to human nature, also prefer consensus and also prefer not rocking-the-boat - it's just too uncomfortable doing otherwise. These natural traits unfortunately lead to an unquestioning gullibility, and a stuck-on-stupid mentality by most scientists.
"We showed our film to 23 Imperial College science undergraduates...We told them we had made a film to expose a scientific controversy, and wanted their input on the ethical issues. None of the students noticed anything amiss. They accepted the ‘facts’ at face value, and discussed the ethics of the fictional scandal at length. A third of the students even felt strongly enough about the issue to raise it outside of class...Our hoax seemed a great success. Even those trained to think scientifically could be duped in a Sokal-like manner by familiar conventions, expectations and prejudices...We were left with a renewed respect for the Royal Society’s famous motto, ‘Nullius in Verba’ – ‘take nobody’s word for it’. Not even our own."
This hoax experiment sheds light on why so many scientists outside the field of climate science willingly accept the CO2-doomsday pronouncements of climate "scientists" whom possess no actual empirical evidence to support their hysterical predictions of climate catastrophe.
From this 'hoax' experiment we can sadly infer: that most scientists are no different than the rest of us; indeed, they too are intellectually lazy; they too willfully prefer (desire) authority; they too fail to challenge the perceived consensus; they too easily accept hearsay, anecdotal evidence; they too are naturally gullible; and surprise, they too are human.
As the authors of this experiment conclude: ‘Nullius in Verba’ - which basically translates into not even putting your blind faith in a trained scientist. Hey, as they say on TV, the best advice is "trust no one."
(click on images to enlarge)
Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.
..........
At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.
Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.
The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.
Previous ocean-warming, tipping-point-hysteria and mainstream-media postings. 'C3' temperature-climate charts.
Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
Read here. Climate skeptics (luke warmers and others) have long contended that the supercomputer climate models used by the IPCC and NASA have significantly overestimated the potential global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The majority of skeptics believe that any warming due to increased CO2 emissions will result in temperature increases of 2°C or less by year 2100. Recently, new peer reviewed studies by the experts have been published that reveals a new consensus being reached that confirms the skeptics' point of view: catastrophic global warming isn't in the cards.
"A collection of research results have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in recent months that buoys my hopes for a low-end climate sensitivity"..."there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less)."..."Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming..."For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K..."
Previous climate-model postings and modern temperature charts.
(click image to enlarge)
Willis Eschenbach reviews a recent National Academy of Science report on climate change and reveals nothing new has been learned - the depressing outcome remains unchanged: billions wasted on climate models.
After decades of of government bureaucrat scientists' effort, and billions invested on massive hardware and software improvements, the IPCC, NASA and NOAA climate models still predict that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 1.5°C to a 3.0°C global temperature change.
That's the same prediction that the climate models and ancient computer technology produced back in the 80's and here's how bad that "expert" prediction is looking now.
"And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail … the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979."
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
Previous failed-prediction postings. Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected."
JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”.
JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.”
JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.”
JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
Computer model predictions from a virtual simulated climate are functionally worthless. For a multitude of reasons, climate simulation models will continue to fail at the task of predicting usable/actionable global climate forecasts. (click on images to enlarge)
Update: More proof that IPCC climate models don't work as claimed. Another update: "This paper reinforces two issues that have repeatedly been made on my weblog: The multi-decadal IPCC global climate models, which have predicted more-or-less perpetual drought in the southwestern United States, are failing in their regional prediction."
Yet, climate science and policy has been bedeviled by the extreme over-reliance on these virtually simulated climate projections. Like a crack addiction, the elites have become addicted to the faulty prediction output of these models, regardless of what the empirical climate data and observations say otherwise. The scientists, politicians, pundits and celebrities of the "elite" class have become so blinded by the "rush" of virtual climate global warming predictions that rationale and cost-effective solutions became literally impossible to civilly discuss/debate, let alone implement.
Unfortunately, the addiction to computer model forecasts is not restricted to climate science. The elites on "model-crack" exist throughout government, industry and the mainstream press, and they continue to be amazed at the gross failures of computer predictions, even those failures in the realm of simplicity (like the housing market) in comparison to the chaotic, complex computer models of the climate.
Read here (and if there's time, read the enlightening comments also). Climate science's plunge into the toilet continues. Would it not be appropriate for a scientist attempting to prove a hypothesis that the waters around Antarctica are warming (and will warm even more!) would at least check the real observed data? Guess not. (Update: Further analysis of this study's bogosity.) (click on image to enlarge)
And, of course, the peer-review journal's editors who published this
study were either too stupid or too lazy to look at the basic data
themselves.
Additional current temp charts here. Historical temp charts here.
Unfortunately, there are prominent AGW-agenda driven climate scientists who will claim or insinuate that specific weather events are a result of "global warming" or are "consistent" with AGW. NASA's Gavin Schmidt is such a scientist. The recent Moscow regional weather heat wave is his latest global warming insinuation:
"If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet."
The major problem with Gavin, and scientists of his ilk, is the total disregard of actual science, such as the fact that meteorology scientists know the cause of the Russian heat wave (and the Pakistani floods); and, scientists know that this exact same type of heat wave has happened before during the 1930's.
Gavin and his friends practice a unique form of climate science malpractice by using specific weather events as stimulating climate porn, and of course, catastrophic global warming catnip.
Instead of bashing Gavin and his "science" comrades with words, let's have the visuals explain the Twilight Zone of Gavin Schmidt's climate science. Episode synopsis: In this 2010 summer episode, red-pink areas represent "GLOBAL WARMING-CLIMATE CHANGE" and the blueish areas are just your typical summer cool weather incidents. Obviously, AGW "global" climate change is just soooo fiendish because it temporarily hides in regional/local areas, never revealing itself as the "global" sinister monstrosity it actually is in Gavin's Twilight Zone.
Click on images to enlarge. Top image from here; bottom image from here.
Read here and here. Another social scientist decides he can do the "global-warming" blame game like any other AGW-researcher seeking new funding. He claims "irrefutable" study showing that warming causes more violence, aka crime. Unfortunately for this researcher, the global crime statistics don't support his "science." It so happens that colder climates report more crime than their warmer brethren, other than a single Caribbean island country.
The EU appears to have a serious problem with crime and it is occurring in the countries with the colder climates. (Remember the violence of Copenhagen Conference, 2009?) Obviously, these countries present a very inhospitable climate, literally and figuratively. They need some serious global-warming to happen, ASAP. Top ten crime countries:
1. Iceland; 2. Sweden; 3. New Zealand; 4. Grenada; 5. Norway; 6. England and Wales; 7. Denmark; 8. Finland; 9. Scotland; 10. Canada
H/T: Watts Up With That regarding global crime map (click on link above)
Read here. Obama and other ill-informed progressive-leftist-liberal elites have literally gone on record stating that the world has been experiencing more frequent storms and more severe storms. They continue to state these untruths despite all scientific evidence pointing to the opposite. In the case of Europe, researchers again looked at the storminess question and found there was no long-term trend, just a natural cycle of storm activity, decades in length.
Note: Observers often wonder how the climate debate become so bitter and controversial. This current condition is primarily due to leftist/liberals non-scientific belief in human caused climate catastrophes, which no degree of scientific knowledge or evidence, which counters their belief model, will be accepted. They resemble the non-scientific Creationists' attitude towards evolution science; react similarly as all the Hollywood nutter celebrities when told that science has proven wrong their ludicrous belief that vaccines cause autism; and glibly repeat idiocy at the level of 9/11, nut-job "Truthers." So, the next time you here Obama claiming global warming causes a snowstorm, just remember the source is an urban, political elite who will always buy into urban myths devoid of science fact. And, btw, that's why many "elites" sound so stupid to those Americans that possess common sense and a belief in actual scientific evidence. (click on image to enlarge)
"Bärring and Fortuniak do not waste any words with their conclusions....They state “(1) There is no significant overall long-term trend common to all indices in cyclone activity in the North Atlantic and European region since the Dalton minimum. (2) The marked positive trend beginning around 1960 ended in the mid-1990s and has since then reversed. This positive trend was more an effect of a 20th century minimum in cyclone activity around 1960, rather than extraordinary high values in 1990s."
"They examine many other studies in their review article, and conclude (LIA is the Little Ice Age) “The analysis of documentary records, discontinuous instrumental data and proxy records indicate that the period of the LIA (AD 1570–1900) included periods of enhanced storminess relative to present."
More severe storm charts here. Other climate history postings here.
Read here. As many elites know, Tommy "The Palace" Friedman, a famous pundit, and Joey "The Strangler" Romm, a famous partisan, leftist scientist, have formed a "global-weirding" tag-team to help educate the readership of the New York Times about climate science, since it's so confusing now days. For example, when you experience a cold summer and then a cold, snowy winter, it's really not global cooling that's causing it, it's global warming, so we need to call it global-weirding instead because global warming causes all sorts of weird stuff, even though it really seems like global cooling. Got it? No? Well that's why the elites need Tommy and Joey to help them.
In addition to global-weird weather, why else do the reading elite of the New York Times need the help of such a spectacular duo? Well, it gets kind of complicated real fast: there's that whole Gore/Soros 'save-our-carbon-free-investments' thing going on that Tommy and Joey are helping out with, plus the proverbial wheels on the global warming/climate change circus wagon have fallen off over the past three months. Knowing that his readers may have found this out from alternative sources, Friedman decided a global-weirding "offensive" tactical surge was needed. I kid you not.
Because this is a global-weirding crisis situation, we also want to be of help to those incredibly intelligent elites that are so dependent on the brilliance of Tom and Joe. With that in mind, we present the below temperature chart for the NYT readers' review, as a reasonable starting point to simplify what's going on. (click on image to enlarge)
What is this chart saying? On the left side of the chart is reality with current global temperatures at 14.5°C. The five trend lines extending out from 2009 to year 2100 represent semi-reality: these are trends based on observed past temperatures. More than likely, the year 2100 temperature will fall within the range of the low and high trends.
The green star on the right side of the chart represents the 2100 temperature that will be reached if CO2 doubles from its 1880 base level (for a doubling of CO2, physics estimates that the global average temperature will increase 1.2 degrees, give or take a few tenths). The gold star represents the peak of Medieval temperatures that may have been reached per recent peer-reviewed, paleo-climate research.
Those purple stars on the right side? They represent pure fantasy, not reality. They are climate model predictions, which means that the observed-based trends will literally have to miraculously jump up to reach those climate model fantasy stars. How do Tom and Joe think that will happen? Well, it's by that old, black magic called "positive feedback," which, by the way, has never happened before - supposedly, all of a sudden, the climate becomes a runaway thermal heat dynamo, melting the entire earth within a few hundred years. Really, that's what they think (or, at least what they want us to believe). Now that you have regained consciousness, please notice the very top purple star. There it is. The infamous Friedman/Romm prediction, which easily wins our C3 "Bozo" prediction label.
Note: Friedman might complain about his being saddled with this prediction, but he's the one taking the advice of Romm, a paid Soros, leftist hack who isn't a climate scientist, which he certainly informed his readers of, right? I wonder if the elite readers also know that "The Strangler" blamed global warming for the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis? Or, that Romm seems to favor McCarthyism tactics. (Ya know, seriously, "The Palace" might just want to reconsider his "expert" global-weirding, tag-team partner.)
Other modern temperature charts
In recent news, NASA/GISS has been trumpeting that the decade ending 2009 was the warmest ever (since 1880) to much fanfare and the continuous repetition by the MSM reporters. For many, GISS claiming anything about their heavily manipulated and fabricated temperatures generates a natural skeptical response. For other knowledgeable persons, the warming is of no surprise since the Earth has been warming from the cessation of the Little Ice Age. It is more than obvious the latest decade should be the warmest based on, well....the obvious - it just naturally happens.
As the GISS scientists seem to be constantly propagandizing that this day, this week, this month, this year, this whatever is always the "warmest" and is thus leading to "unprecedented" temperature change and "runaway" temperature trends, then this past "warmest" decade, when put into context, should clearly indicate all these fears are legitimate, not hype. To test for the hype hypothesis, we use the NCDC global decadal temperatures (instead of the GISS maladjusted temperatures) and respective CO2 level per cent changes below. It's no surprise to skeptics that a different picture is revealed versus the B.S. that GISS and the MSM are constantly shoveling. (click image to enlarge)
Read here, here, and here. Some scientists involved in the Climategate scandal (emanating out of the UK's CRU facility) were also participants in determining the historical CO2 levels to be used in climate models. They established that pre-industrial CO2 levels (see solid green curve on chart below) were at a 270/280 ppm level in the atmosphere. This level was first determined by a single earlier scientist cherry-picking only selected CO2 data readings that matched his desired low CO2 level goal; and later, scientists had difficulties matching the ice core CO2 data with the previous cherry-picked CO2 records, so they just "adjusted" the ice core CO2 data to fit their needs. Obviously, as with the "adjusted" temperatures scandal, Climategate-type science has infected the CO2 data.
In summary, there is strong empirical evidence that pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels were some 15 to 30% higher than IPCC assumes. This means that IPCC climate model' formulas are based on incorrect, "adjusted" CO2 data.
This chart shows human CO2 emissions and CO2 atmospheric levels (IPCC estimated "adjusted" levels from ice cores and probable actual historical levels from non-ice core data). (click on image to enlarge)
