C3

"Climate Emergency" Disinformation: Pushing Visual Fear-Propaganda

It is regrettable that so many politicians today feel compelled to support particular agenda narratives laced with disinformation that is being created by a number of sources, including those of misguided "expert" scholars, scientists, activists, and journalists.

The false narrative has grown so obvious and apparent during the COVID era that large segments of the public are rejecting the blatant propaganda. Many believe that this is because the ongoing disinformation is being used to force the public to comply with authoritarian, anti-democratic laws and regulations that have been developed by the "experts."

And much like the disinformation of the COVID narrative, the ruling elites are using the same propaganda techniques for the issue of climate change (aka global warming, climate emergency, climate crisis, existential threat, etc.).

Chart #1 (click on to enlarge)

As an illustration, the ruling class is currently spreading false information about "global boiling" in an effort to persuade the populace that major reductions in the use of fossil fuels are required in order to "save the world."

The disinformation campaign frequently uses climate science graphs, like this global anomaly chart from NASA/GISS, to incite widespread public angst.

The NASA/GISS graph (Chart #1) created by the experts depicts scary, rapidly rising monthly global temperature anomalies and displays an anomaly range from -1.0 to +1.5°C on the left axis for the past 170+ years.

But who lives in a location where temperatures (actual observed thermometer values) only range 2.5 degrees in the course of a year?

The majority of people on earth typically live in one of the 90 some nations with a low to high temperature range of the thermometer that is greater than 38 degrees every year. For instance, China's climate has an average daily low in January of -10.6°C and an average high in July of 39.8°C, which is roughly a 50-degree range for a country with 1.4 billion people.

Chart #2

Since it is not practical for this article to show a thermometer degree plot for each of those 90 countries, instead chart #2 plots both the global monthly thermometer and global anomaly temperature measurements using a temp range from -2.0 degrees Celsius (28.4F) to 36 degrees Celsius (96.8F).

Chart #2 provides the real-world temperature context that the public is missing when presented with a simple anomaly chart, such as the one produced by NASA/GISS.

In addition, the common anomaly temperature published by NASA/GISS and other climate research agencies do not include the atmospheric CO2 growth that is claimed to be the cause of the "global boiling."

Chart #2 does include the CO2 growth, making it possible for the public to assess the governing elites' claims that the normal person's use of fossil fuels is actually producing a climate emergency, a climate crisis, an existential threat, global boiling, and etc.

It is very likely that the average person viewing figure #2 would not draw the same conclusion as the experts that CO2 warming is about to bring an end to civilization.

In conclusion, a rational discussion about solutions rather than authoritarian decrees could start if politicians and their "experts" gave the public the necessary information about the climate change challenges in the proper context and avoided the easily debunked fear-mongering hyperbole and disinformation.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Chart#1 source. Excel used for calculations and plot of chart#2. Source of NOAA's global monthly mean temperatures for calculation of thermometer temps & source of NOAA anomalies.

Another Bupkes IPCC Prediction: Release of CO2 From Warming Peatlands Is Not Happening

The prediction failure rate of the IPCC and global warming alarmists has simply been astounding.

It is highly certain, at least a 95% certainty, that there has never been an organization so inept at predictions.

The latest prediction failure is one that states that as the earth warms, the world's peatlands would release their sequestered CO2. This release would then unleash a climate positive feedback, thus warming the world even further.

As this new study discovered, per the empirical evidence, as the earth warmed, even more CO2 was sequestered in the peatlands - the direct opposite of the IPCC alarmist community prediction. Absolutely zilch positve feedback took place

Additional peer-reviewed and failed-prediction articles.

Why IPCC 'AR5' Fiasco? The Policymaker Community Utilizes "Decision-Based Evidence Making"

The newest IPCC report (AR5) has produced a fiasco of science falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations that is being torn asunder.

In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)

 

IPCC 'AR5' Falsehood: Global Warming Is "Hiding", Causing Ocean Heat To Increase By A Gazillion Joules!

The well documented lack of global warming over the last 15+ years has proven to be a major problem for the latest IPCC AR5 report.

In prior reports, the IPCC has utilized short-term warming as proof that greenhouse gases were the cause, and supposedly proved climate model accuracy. But in this report, the IPCC dismisses the latest 15-year period as being too short to rely on.

Despite this dismissal, the IPCC AR5 report does make an attempt to explain why global warming went AWOL. One of the reasons they state is that global warming decided to dive into the ocean depths where it is currently hiding (and somehow also escaped original detection).

The "hiding" excuse has been picked up by mainstream science journalists without their doing any due diligence on the veracity of the IPCC statement or at least reviewing the actual empirical evidence.

     "It’s clear science journalists need some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures  — not realizing they convert to a mere 0.07C over nearly 50 years (as if we could measure the average temperature of the global oceans to a hundredth of a degree!). Worse, the warming we do find is so small, it supports the skeptical calculations, not the IPCC’s ones."

A number of experts have analyzed the "global-warming-is-hiding" claim and found it to be, at best, laughable. To add to the bogosity, the IPCC and other serial climate-change exaggerators have attempted to hide the real impact of global warming on the oceans by using a 'gazillion-bazillion' Joules to portray the gain in ocean heat.

A common way they have expressed the effect is to state that it has increased by an approximate 2.0*10²³Joules  (or, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules). But when converted to actual temperature warming, that number, with all those zeros, equates to about a total of +0.06°C to +0.07°C increase since 1955.

Laughable, no? This level of warming is barely even measurable and irrefutably indicates that CO2 emissions have barely impacted the top 2000 meters of the oceans.

The adjacent three graphs (click to enlarge) depict the warming that has occurred in degrees, as well as Joules. For more information about these charts, done by experts, go here, here and here.

And their work is confirmed by no less than NOAA:

"For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 10²² J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."

In addition, the list of articles addressing the IPCC's gross misrepresentation of ocean warming (the "hiding" bogosity) is growing: read here, here, here, here and here.

Note: A 'gazillion-bazillion' is not recognized as a real number. FWIW, a number with 23 zeros does fall between the 'sextillion' and 'septillion' nomenclature. 'Gazillion-bazillion' sounds better though.

IPCC 'AR5' Confirms: Catastrophic Climate Change Claims By Al Gore Unrealistic Fantasies

Al Gore has often revealed a fundamental dishonesty about catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters. His fantasies have an unfortunate high correlation with absurd disaster movies.

Recently, he became the laughing stock in the science community with his bogus claim of a new hurricane 'Category 6' measurement being added.

That claim was quickly debunked, and now the new IPCC report (AR5) has essentially debunked most of the hysterical climate disaster claims made by Gore et al.

Per climate scientist Judith Curry's analysis of the IPCC's new AR5 report and confirming what others have found:

"But the real issue is this.  The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is  not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).

The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here).  The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about  any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century.  These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW."

As they say, read the whole thing.

Source of movie image.

IPCC's AR5 "Unprecedented" Decadal Global Warming Claim Proven False By Latest Empirical Evidence

The recent IPCC 'AR5' summary report was essentially an admission of failure for the catastrophic human-induced global warming hypothesis. The admission was blatantly obvious as the IPCC bureaucrats did not deliver an adequate explanation for the last 15+ years of non-warming, plus they were unable to even establish what current climate science believes the critical climate sensitivity measure to be.

As result, the IPCC had to resort to lame, non-scientific descriptors such as "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" that were without meaningful empirical evidence. Below is an analysis of their supposed "unprecedented" decadal warming, that when dissected, is beyond lame. (click on charts to enlarge)

These two graphs plot decades-ending global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The graph on the left represents decades prior to the 1950s, and the second graph, those decades subsequent to the 1960s.

Some observations based on this empirical evidence:

#1. From the decade ending in 1909, there were 4 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher at decade-end (the increase from 1909 to 1919 was indeed very small but nevertheless, it was a warming.).

#2. In the modern era, since 1979, there has been only 3 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher - ergo, the warming prior to the 1950s remains "unprecedented" in terms of decadal duration.

#3. Clearly, the modern era decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) CO2 levels jumped dramatically, approximately 50 points, which is over 6 times greater than the CO2 increase during the pre-1950s decades (1920s, 1930s, 1940s)

#4. If the warming trend of the early 20th century had continued (it didn't) until the end of the 21st century (2099), global temperatures would have increased by +1.92°C; yet despite the huge modern era CO2 spike, if the warming trend represented by the last 3 decades continued (it won't), the increase by 2099 would only be +1.72°C.

#5. The IPCC states that prior to 1950 any global warming was due to natural forces - thus, the +0.41°C decadal increase during the early 20th century was due entirely to natural climate forces.

#6. The IPCC states that the modern warming decadal warming, +0.55°C, was at least 50% caused by humans - thus, it is highly likely that natural climate forces were responsible for the other 50%, say a +0.27°C of the modern warming.

#7. If only half of the modern decadal warming is due to human influences, then it is also likely that the human-caused linear trend would represent a warming rate of only +0.89°C, half the modern 3-decade full-linear trend rate of 1.78°C/century.

#8. Put another way, the pre-1950, the all-natural decadal trend rate of +1.30°C exceeds the +0.89°C modern decadal trend attributed to anthropogenic forces (including land-use, the UHI effect, and of course, greenhouse gases).

#9. If one assumes that the modern decadal warming in reality was simply a cyclical repeat of the early 20th century decades of natural warming, then in actuality, at best, the gigantic increases of CO2 levels were only responsible for maybe a mere +0.14°C increase (+0.55°C - +0.41°C = +0.14°C) over the 3 decades ending in 2009.

Summary: After 7 years of research and billions of dollars on the 'AR5' report, the best that the IPCC can come up with is the thin gruel of "unprecedented" decadal warming, which when examined closely, is a false representation of the makeup, duration and the size of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. Since the last 15 years have proven that natural climate forces simply overwhelm the CO2 impact, the likelihood that modern decadal warming is more a result of natural (non-human) climate forces is the more probable "95% certainty".

Note: Data sources for above Excel charts can be found here.

The Significant Failure of IPCC's Models Ripped By Expert - They Can't Predict Squat

Climate Audit provides a clear summation of the significant issue of a global warming hiatus ('pause') since 1998, which the IPCC has failed to address, and will likely continue to evade and deny.

Plus, the article then delivers a devastating critique/audit of the climate models' inability to replicate the actual temperature trend since 1979.

The analysis by Climate Audit is both brutal and forthright, clearly articulating 'those stubborn facts' of real world climate science: summary - computer climate models can't predict squat.

Today's Climate Denier-Liar-BSer: Major EU Publications Now Report "Global Warming" Truth While IPCC's Pachauri Denies

As the actual climate truths and realities are finally being reported by the world's press (Der Spiegel, The Financial Times, etc.), the UN's global warming chief alarmist continues with delusional denial.

Since the UN's IPCC is a political bureaucracy, the political agenda takes precedence over empirical evidence and science objectivity.

   ·"The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. Since it is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas, science has never been the driving force at the IPCC."

Pachauri's IPCC has literally become the anti-science, denial machine.....providing more proof to a new generation that the United Nations is not to be trusted, ever.

Simply put, the UN has always been about politics and bureaucracy, 24/7, not objective, empirical science.

The Money Cost Of Reducing CO2 Emissions? A Simple Calculator Shows How Much

The newest IPCC climate change report is soon to be published and it is sure to include, again, grossly wrong climate model predictions of global temperature change, along with misleading cost impacts concerning any CO2 mitigation schemes.

These forthcoming IPCC misrepresentations can be compared to what is likely to happen, given the ample historical evidence at hand. For example:

    •What is the cost of cutting U.S. 2012 CO2 emissions by 20%?
    •What's the impact on global temperature for such a reduction?
    •What about a 10% global cut - across the board - from the 2012 level of  emissions?

The image on the left shows those resulting costs and impacts associated with respective per cent reductions.

But that's just an image. You can do better.

Use this calculator to accomplish a 'quick & dirty' estimate of impacts from hypothetical CO2 reduction schemes. The calculator will allow you to change the essential parameters (those in the yellow boxes), thus providing insight to how little we can really impact temperature change and the ludicrously high cost of attempting to do so.

This simple calculator is based on the known information about global CO2 emissions and HadCRUT4 annual (calendar year-end) global temperatures. Since the source of the global CO2 emissions only starts with 1965, that is the base year for all the simple calculator's math.

As a result, with 48 years (1965 through 2012) of data we know the following:

1. How much the global temperature (HadCRUT4) changed over 48 years.

2. The amount of CO2 emission tons that were produced over 48 years.

3. Then taking this information and using fundamental arithmetic, one can thus calculate the very small fraction of temperature change that is caused by a single ton of CO2, over the last 48 years.

That's what the calculator does.

Have at it. Decent ballpark estimates are achievable with this simple calculator and it didn't cost the taxpayers a single penny.

In fact, using the most basic math that the calculator employs, it produces better estimates of temperature change than the multi-billion dollar super computer climate models (more on that in a later post).

Update: Instead of using a global per cent CO2 emission reduction in the bottom calculator, a country per cent cut (or even a U.S. state per cent cut) can be used instead. Go here to determine country/state per cents.

Admission Of Epic Fail By Mainstream Journalism: 'We Lied, Dangerous Global Warming Does Not Exist'

The Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.

As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.

The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.

A partial list includes:

The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral and plus....

Daily Mail, October 2012

"We agree with Mr. Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century." - UK MetOffice

NASA Global Temperature Update, January 2013

"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist, James Hansen

The Australian, February 2013

"The UN's [IPCC] climate change chief has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office..." - IPCC Head, Rajendra Pachauri

Minnesota Daily, April 2013

"Global warming forecasts have the difficulty that one can’t find much actual global warming in present day weather observations." - Stanford University Physicist, Robert Laughlin

Der Spiegel Online, June 2013

"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans von Storch

The Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton

This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.

Note: Image source

More Climate Science Lies: 99% of Scientists Agree IPCC Fabricated New '95%' Claim - Zero Statistical Support

(click on above for original/source)

There is no disagreement that the IPCC climate models have been spectacularly wrong over the last 15+ years of zero global warming - even the IPCC admits that, as the adjacent graph attests.

To make matters worse for climate science credibility, it's now revealed that the IPCC's new climate report claim of "95% certainty" has absolutely zero statistical / mathematical support.

"First of all, the figure 95% isn't really calculated in any way. It's literally pulled out of the air. The gullible audience of the IPCC is supposed to believe that the IPCC members are shamans with supernatural skills and if they vote about and approve a figure they randomly invent, it's a deep and accurate truth one should worship.".....

Obviously, the IPCC has not learned from their past egregious lapses in scientific judgment.

It is with our 99% certainty that hard-science scientists would agree that the IPCC's "95%" claim is entirely non-statistical flim flam, which the average person would be mislead by.

Newly Released Evidence Establishes That Arctic Region Was Warmer During Medieval Period

The bogus "unprecedented" modern warming claims by the IPCC and catastrophic global warming 'hystericals' takes another body blow - newly released Arctic region empirical evidence (from Svalbard) confirms that Medieval Period was robustly warmer than the world-ending, hypothetical CO2-induced modern warming feared by alarmists

(click on image to enlarge -- data, source & where in the world?)

The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.

The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.

Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.

Previous climate-history postings and historical-temperature charts.

IPCC's Global Warming Hypothesis Fails Ultimate Test - No Tropical 'Hotspot' After 17 Years of Immense CO2 Emissions

The ultimate test for the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted "hotspot" that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming - newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the "hotspot" failed to materialize

(click on image to enlarge - data sources)

Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.

This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.

The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.

If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.

Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist. 

The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.

A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)

Conclusions from the chart:

#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.

#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.

#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.

#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).

#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).

#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.

#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.

#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.

Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:

"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem..."

Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):

"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.

"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005

“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008

 “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007

Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:

"Section 9.4.1.3.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""

"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."

Note 1: A simple hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm; then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."

Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).

Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).

Additional modern and historical temperature charts.

Evidence Points To Declining Cloud Coverage As Real Cuprit For 80's and 90's Global Warming

The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is on verge of collapse as non-existent warming facts force unpleasant admissions of truth - and, the empirical evidence implicates increasing clouds as being the culprit for the halt of warming

(click on image to enlarge - data sources)

This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.

The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.

As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.

Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.

The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).

Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):

“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]

Conclusions:

#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.

#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely

#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.

#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.

#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.

Additional peer reviewed postings and modern temperature charts.

New Scripps Institution Antarctica Research Confirms IPCC Wrong Regarding Little Ice Age

The IPCC's "consensus agenda" has produced a lot of non-scientific climate garbage over its history - new Antarctica study debunks the claim that the Little Ice Age was non-global and restricted only to the Northern Hemisphere - another IPCC 'factlesstoid' has became official 'toast' for the anti-science ash bin file

(click on image to enlarge - source)

Read here. The U.S. has a research station located at the WAIS divide where scientists associated with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted an analysis to determine the Little Ice Age impact on the southern polar region.

"The authors (Orsi et al.) write that "the Northern Hemisphere experienced a widespread cooling from about 1400 to 1850 C.E., often referred to as the Little Ice Age (hereafter LIA)," which they describe as "the latest of a series of centennial scale oscillations in the climate,"...three researchers, all from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, report determining that "the WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800 C.E.," and they say that "the temperature in the time period 1400-1800 C.E." - which meshes well with the chronology of the LIA in the Northern Hemisphere - "was on average 0.52 ± 0.28°C colder than the last 100-year average."...stating that their result "is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing..." [Anais J. Orsi, Bruce D. Cornuelle, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus] 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Additional climate history and peer reviewed articles. Historical temperature charts.

Global Warming, Climate Change Lies: Obama & Democrats Hide Science Facts From Public

Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling

(click on images to enlarge - data sources)

As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.

Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.

These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.

The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.

The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.

Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.

The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may  follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.

Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.

As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.

Additional modern temperature, greenhouse gases and climate-model charts.

IPCC Gold-Standard Measurements Corroborate That Climate Sensitivity Is Lower Than Predicted

Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure

(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.

The 'Great Global Warming-Climate Change Disappearance' Is Major Inconvenient Truth, Except For Elites With An Agenda

100% of climate scientists now agree that accelerating global warming has robustly stalled- the IPCC's gold-standard UK HadCRUT global temperature dataset confirms what skeptical scientists have long publicly discussed

(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)

There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.

Despite many climate scientists now being forced to reconsider their runaway "tipping point" AGW hypothesis of high climate sensitivity, and the U.S. public placing a theoretical climate change as a very low priority, there remain those political elites and mainstream "journalists" bitterly clinging to their blatantly incorrect, non-scientific, irrational (insane?) fears of "scary" global warming.

In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.

Conclusions:

• As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
• In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
• The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
• Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
• All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
• Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.

Additional modern temperature charts.

Latest Empirical Evidence: The Abysmal Prediction Failure Of Taxpayer Funded CO2-Based Climate Models

Taxpayers have spent billions on CO2-driven climate model "science," which the empirical evidence now suggests was like pouring money down a rat-hole....the abysmal prediction failure of CO2-centric models is simply fact - are there actual scientific models that can replace this current wasteland of biased AGW climate research?

(click on graphs to enlarge - data sources)

As major mainstream news outlets are starting to report, global warming has essentially disappeared, replaced with a slight cooling trend in recent years. Taxpayer-funded climate scientists are finally being forced to go on record stating the obvious - their global warming predictions were incorrect.

Their favorite euphemism to describe what is happening is that global warming is at a "standstill." Even the most infamous climate reality denier has started using that terminology to describe a decade of non-existent warming - he can't quite yet bring himself to say global cooling.

Three of the above charts (top-left, top-right and bottom-left) represent the state-of-the-art models used by the "consensus" climate experts. As seen, all three have been spectacularly wrong through the end of 2012.

These three models (World Climate Research Programme, NASA-GISS and the IPCC) are CO2-centric climate models - global warming and climate change are primarily driven by levels of atmospheric CO2. As a result, they have long predicted dangerous and accelerating global warming for Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces - and it bears repeating, they have been spectacularly wrong.

The majority of scientists now agree that these "consensus" science models are flawed (at least 97% of scientists would agree ;-) and are incapable of accurately predicting global temperatures. Thus, newer models based on non-CO2 drivers of climate are starting to see the light of day, so-to-speak.

One such newer model is represented by the bottom-right chart above. This model appears to have better global temperature prediction capabilities, which also happens to verify that CO2 is not the principal climate driver, as scientists on the taxpayer dole claim (and misrepresent).

Additional temperature and climate charts.

IPCC's 'Gold Standard' Temperature Dataset Authenticates Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years

The UK's HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset has been the IPCC's gold-standard for its political-agenda "science" reports - unfortunately for the IPCC, the HadCRUT dataset also confirms the disappearance of global warming, replaced by a very slight cooling trend

(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)

It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997.

Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened.

The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates.

As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated.

As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span.

This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here).

In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth.

Additional global temperature and climate charts.

Note: There was a cosmetic typo in original chart. Abreviation 'RSS' has now been replaced with correct abbreviation 'HC3'. Thank you, Burt Rutan - would not have noticed it until I saw your email.

Satellites Confirm: Atmospheric Global Cooling Reigns, Not The IPCC's Predicted CO2 "Global Warming"

The 2012 year-end satellite measurements continue to be cruel to the IPCC's green-sharia scientists - this UN agency has long predicted huge atmospheric global warming from CO2 emissions .....yet in reality, global cooling currently dominates

(click on images to enlarge)

The above chart is the plot (Figure 1) of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA (data sources).

Clearly, as CO2 levels have monotonously increased over the last 17-years (why 17?), global temperatures have not increased with any significance. By year 2100, this "warming" trend would produce a projected increase of one-third of a single degree - rather insignificant and hardly noticeable.

The UN's IPCC's catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which the vast majority of empirical-based scientists now reject, demands that ever increasing  atmospheric CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to rapidly warm. This accelerated, man-made atmosphere warming would then significantly warm the globe's oceans and land surfaces, quickly making Earth inhospitable from incredibly high temperatures and horrific climate change disasters.

Contrary to the United Nation's "science" though, global temperatures have morphed over the last 30 years from a warming trend to a cooling trend despite the huge increase in CO2 levels.

This next set of temperature plots (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5) depict the global atmosphere temperatures and CO2 levels over four different time periods. These plots, plus the 17-year chart, formulate an empirical reality that refutes the UN's non-empirical CAGW hypothesis:

1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the last 30 years

2. For all time periods, the average atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded the supposedly "safe" 350 parts-per-million (ppm)

3. As figure #2 shows, there is a modest global warming trend evident over 30 years

4. Figure #2 also reveals that most of the global warming took place prior to 1999

5. Since 2003 1993, the 20-year plot (figure #3) has a smaller warming trend - less than 1.0 degree by year 2100

6. The 15-year and 10-year charts (figures #4 and 5) have no warming trend, proving that a very slight atmospheric global cooling has dominated since the late 20th century

7. 2012 global temperatures are well below previous highs over the last 30 years.

8. The 17-year plot (figure #1), which is favored by some CAGW scientists, confirms that global atmospheric warming has been robustly insignificant, contrary to their own predictions

Conclusions: Per the actual satellite empirical evidence, global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling over the last 15 years despite the IPCC "consensus" predictions that global warming would have to be produced if CO2 levels exceeded the 350 ppm level. Global cooling has now dominated for a significantly extended period, which demonstrably proves that CO2 is not a "global thermostat" as claimed by many of the UN's green-sharia scientists. (Note: linear trend representations are not predictions.)

Likewise, claims that global warming is "rapid," "accelerating," "irrefutable," "unprecedented," "incontrovertible," and/or "irreversible" are outright known falsehoods.

Finally, any journalist, scientist, politician or bureaucrat using such terminology to describe global temperatures is an unequivocal liar - that is the simple, empirical truth.

Additional global temperature and climate charts.

Latest & Greatest IPCC Climate Models Still Unable To Simulate Major Components Of Earth's Climate

The recent evidence is overwhelming that climate models are completely ineffective at predicting global temperatures, and newer research confirms they have serious problems properly simulating major component/regions of the globe's environment

(click image to enlarge)

Read here. New research on the accuracy of climate models regarding the modeling of the Southern Ocean region reveals major issues.

The Weijer et al. team identified the following concerns:

"The nine researchers state that "the CCSM4 has varying degrees of accuracy in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Ocean when compared with observations," some of which we list as follows:
(1) "the seasonally ice-covered regions are mildly colder (ΔSST > -2°C) than observations,"
(2) "sea ice extent is significantly larger than observed,"
(3) "north of the seasonal ice edge, there is a strong (-4°C < ΔSST < -1°C) cold bias in the entire Pacific sector south of 50°S and in the western Australian-Antarctic Basin,"
(4) "positive biases (1° < ΔSST < 4°C) are found in the Indian and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean,"
(5) "significant differences are found in the Indian and Pacific sectors north of the ACC, with the CCSM4 model being too cold (< -2°C) and fresh (<-0.3 psu),"
(6) "AABW adjacent to the Antarctic continent is too dense,"
(7) "North Atlantic Deep Water is too salty (>0.2 psu),"
(8) "in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, north of 50°S and below 3000 meters, the too-salty AABW penetrates northward, resulting in a denser-than-observed abyssal ocean in CCSM4,"
(9) "the model underestimates the depth of the deep winter mixed layers in the Indian and eastern Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean north of the ACC,"
(10) "in the southern Tasman Sea and along the eastern Indian Ocean boundary ... the model mixed layer depth is deeper than observed by more than 400 meters,"
(11) "in all sectors of the Southern Ocean, Model CFC-11 concentrations in the lower thermocline and intermediate waters are lower than observed,"
(12) "model CFC-11 concentrations in the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) are lower than observed in the basins adjacent to the Antarctic continent,"
(13) "model surface CFC-11 concentrations are higher than observed,"
(14) "the production of overflow waters in the Ross Sea is too low by about a factor of 2 relative to the limited observations,"
(15) "the depth at which the product water settles was also shown to be too shallow by about a factor of 2,"
(16) "the subtropical gyre of the South Atlantic is too strong by almost a factor of 2, associated with a strong bias in the wind stress,"
(17) the mean position of the BMC is too far south in the CCSM4," and
(18) "the model variability in the position of the BMC is significantly less than observations."

[Wilbert Weijer, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Mathew E. Maltrud, Nicole Jeffery, Matthew W. Hecht, Corinne A. Hartin, Erik van Sebille, Ilana Wainer, Laura Landrum 2012: Journal of Climate]

Conclusions: The IPCC climate models can't simulate the reality of observed climate conditions. Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.

Previous climate-model and peer-reviewed postings. Climate model and modern temperature charts.

Latest European Research Determines Why IPCC's CO2-Centric Climate Models Fail So Badly At Global Temperature Prediction

The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume

(click on image to enlarge, source)

Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.

The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.

It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.

The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.

"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site

Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.

• The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
• Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
• Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
• Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
• Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
• CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Previous climate-model, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Modern, historical, climate-model and greenhouse-gas charts.

U.S. Scientists Confirm Human CO2 Emissions Are Not Causing A Surge In Heavy Precipitation Events

IPCC climate doomsday advocates predict all sorts of calamitous, extreme climate change events from human CO2 emissions that seemingly fail to materialize - the lack of increased heavy precipitation events across the U.S. is another one of those failed predictions

(image source)

Read here. Climate scientists again reviewed the empirical weather evidence to determine if there has been a surge of heavy precipitation events, as predicted by the IPCC and its climate models.

Per the IPCC and its climate doomsday acolytes, human CO2 emissions causes increased warming that causes greater water evaporation, which in turn will increase the frequency and volume of rainfall incidents. Obviously, the increase in heavy rainfall would then likely lead to an increase in flooding disaster incidents. The IPCC's climate models have been programmed to follow that assumption.

Yet when researchers actually check the climate model predictions against weather reality, the IPCC models are rarely correct. Mahajan et al. just determined that to be the case for the IPCC's heavy rainfall prediction.

"Noting that "extreme events of precipitation have a potential for impacting our social and economic activities,"...state that it is "essential to determine if there has been a systematic change in the extremes over the past years and what awaits us in the future owing to global warming," especially in light of the fact that "climate model projection studies suggest that intense precipitation would be on the rise as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gas forcings in the future..."trends in monthly heavy precipitation, defined by a return period of one year, are assessed for statistical significance in observations and Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations over the contiguous United States...report that trends estimated from the two data sources they employed "straddle the margin of statistical significance, and hence a definitive answer to the question of increasing trend of heavy precipitation over the US cannot be arrived at by looking at observational data." And with nearly half (9 out of 20) of the GCMs employed in their study predicting trends that are "significantly different from the observations," they are forced to conclude that "the GCMs are not yet fully capable of simulating extremes of precipitation at a regional level,"" [Salil Mahajan, Gerald R. North, R. Saravanan, Marc G. Genton 2012: Climate Dynamics]

Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions, and the supposed global warming, are not causing an increase in heavy precipitation events across the U.S. as predicted. The IPCC's climate models again fail a crucial test when their output is compared to actual weather reality.

Additional severe-weather, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Severe-weather and modern temperature charts. A lengthy list of severe-weather events.

Extreme Climate Change: Asian Researchers Document Natural Global Warming & Global Cooling Cycle

The UN's IPCC and associated climate doomsday scientists attempted to convince policymakers and the public that extreme climate change was occurring in the modern world world and that it was "unprecedented" - the historical empirical evidence does not support that conclusion

(click image to enlarge)

Read here. The UN's IPCC is not a climate science research agency. Instead, it is a bureaucratic political agency charged with "proving" human greenhouse gases (ie, CO2 emissions) are causing "unprecedented" global warming and climate change.

It conducts no original research, instead relying on cherry-picked peer reviewed studies and non-peer reviewed reports from green activist organizations. It prefers research studies that happen to also rely on cherry-picked data and/or flagrantly absurd statistical methodoloiges that produce the infamous hockey-stick presentation of past temperatures. The classic case of this IPCC-style of science, that's since been discredited, is this study and the most recent hockey-stick fiasco that had to be withdrawn is this one.

Because of the easy access to knowledge and information that the internet now provides, we can also discover the past and more current peer reviewed studies that the IPCC chose to avoid, ignore or dismissed because they did not support the political objective of proving the climate evils of CO2 greenhouse gases. One such report from the past that was ignored was conducted by Japanese researchers, which confirmed that modern climate change was not unusual but part of a natural pattern.

"In the early 1990s, Japanese scientists Kitagawa and Matsumoto extracted eleven tree ring cores from cedars on the...Japan island of Yakushima. The cores contained tree-rings going back some 2000 years. The researchers determined the carbon 13 isotope values and found the delta-13-C values fluctuated in a characteristic manner...The results showed that temperatures over the previous 2000 years in South Japan fluctuated over a range of 5°C...A clear millennium cycle is depicted. The cold period of the Migration Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warm Period are clearly recognisable. Moreover, this climate development is well documented in Japanese historical records...They carried out a detailed frequency analysis of their data and found characteristic cycles with periods in the range of several decades and centuries. Among others, they discovered a period of 187 years, which coincides with the known Suess/de Vries solar activity cycle. In a similar manner the 70 and 89-year Gleissberg-cycle was identified." [Hiroyuki Kitagawa and Eiji Matsumoto 1995: Geophysical Research Letters]

Conclusion: Extreme climate change as represented by significant global cooling and global warming periods over the past 2,000 years, is a natural phenomenon. Thus, modern global warming that took place over the late 20th century is not "unprecedented."

Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.

Global Warming Science Facts: Latest HadCRUT Analysis Confirms Slight Global Cooling Trend Last 15 Years

The global warming science facts continue to robustly challenge the "consensus" global warming hypothesis - despite prodigious amounts of CO2 emissions, a global cooling trend exists

(click on image to enlarge)

Here is the typical plot of the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperatures. As a change in pace, a different depiction of "global warming" is adjacent.

The left side of this chart reveals the current 15-yr per century global temperature change trend (-0.12 degree), as of April 2012 - the blue bar near the bottom. The grey bar represents the massive amount of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere over the last 15 calendar years.

In contrast, for the previous 15 years ending April 1997, the red bar represents the per century temperature change trend (+1.08 degree) and partially hidden grey bar the total human CO2 emissions released during the calendar year span of 1982 - 1996.

The data portrayed in this chart, when combined, represents the last 30 years (360 consecutive months, starting May 1982 and ending April 2012) of human CO2 emissions and global temperature change.

Conclusions: The global warming science facts do not support the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis that is continuously promulgated by bureaucrats and paid-off scientists. A global cooling trend has developed despite the IPCC's climate model predictions and the immense human CO2 emissions over the last 15 years (a 1.7 times increase over the 15-yr period ending in 1996) . Catastrophic, dangerous, unequivocal, accelerating and unprecedented global warming are non-existent as of April 2012. In summary, the data strongly and irrefutably suggest that human CO2 emissions are not a powerful greenhouse gas and that, instead, natural climate forces are the likely primary drivers of global temperature changes.

Additional modern, regional, historical, fabricated-fake,  and climate-model charts.

Note: Linear trends are not predictions.

Global Warming Science Facts: NOAA Confirms CO2 Emissions Have Little Impact On 2012 Global Temperatures

Per the now widely discredited CAGW hypothesis, which the UN's IPCC agency still promotes, rapidly increasing and catastrophic global temperatures are the result of human CO2 emissions - but as the global warming science facts produced by the U.S. NOAA agency confirms, accelerating and dangerous warming is not happening

(click on image to enlarge)

Over the first four months of 2012, the continental U.S. has experienced very warm and enjoyable temperatures. Yet, despite the warming of the U.S., the rest of the globe experienced temperatures below average, as the chart depicts.

The adjacent chart plots the average temperature anomaly for the first four months over the last 17 years ("why 17?" you ask) and the average CO2 level for those same four months. The green curve represents the five-year average of the temperature anomalies and the black CO2 curve is also a five-year average.

Obviously, over the last 17 years, hundreds of billions of tons of human CO2 emissions from consumption of fossil fuels has caused the atmospheric CO2 levels to increase dramatically. Yet global temperatures are not rapidly warming but instead have been basically flat to a minor cooling over that time period.

Conclusion: The global warming science facts indicate that human CO2 emissions do not cause rapid and catastrophic warming. This empirical evidence from the NOAA climate agency is unequivocal and irrefutable - the world is not facing a climate change, global temperature crisis due to soccer moms driving minivans.

Additional modern, historical, fabricated-fake and climate-model charts.

Climate Modeling Failure: New Study Finds EPA & IPCC Climate Models Wrong About More Droughts For Southwest USA

The EPA, the IPCC and the USGCRP bureaucrats have erroneously predicted, per their global climate models, that southwest U.S. would become drier with more droughts - the latest research finds that these predictions are result of climate modeling failure

(image source)

Read here. Climate alarmist scientists and multi-agency bureaucrats continue to produce erroneous assessments and misguided advice for policymakers based on global climate models. Computer models, and especially the global climate variety, have been a fountain of bogus predictions for years.

In a new study, experts documented another case of failed of global computer simulations that confirms why these hugely expensive 'big picture' models are pretty much worthless. Counter to the EPA and IPCC's predictions, the southwest USA is actually less likely to suffer from droughts, water shortages, forest fires, agriculture crop failure or insect infestations based on new research.

Why were the tax-payer sucking, big government agencies, soooo wrong? The global climate modelers forgot to tell the bureaucrats that the models did not include the impact of mountains on the climate and the bureaucrats were too stupid and/or lazy to ask - doh!

"A research team...[Gao et al.]...investigated that the differences between how large-scale global climate models and finer-scale regional climate models handled the characteristics of moisture flow in the atmosphere over the southwestern U.S...The regional climate models (RCMs) include much finer scale processes than are included in the global climate models (GCMs). In the Southwest, this includes a finer representation of the complex, mountainous terrain which plays a key role in the regional precipitation processes...compared how the RCMs handled the processes that lead to precipitation across the Southwest compared to how the processes were simulated in GCMs. They generally found that the better representation of the terrain by the RCMs allowed them to generate more future rainfall...result from Gao et al. showing that RCMs generated more future precipitation than GCMs in the Southwestern U.S...RCMs allowed them to better simulate the snow accumulation and ablation at high elevations and consequently “runoff in the Colorado River Basin is less susceptible to a warming climate in RCMs than in GCMs.”" [Yanhong Gao, L. Ruby Leung, Eric P. Salathé Jr., Francina Dominguez, Bart Nijssen, Dennis P. Lettenmaier 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Conclusion: Global climate modeling failure is the rule rather than the exception in regards to the computer simulations that EPA & IPCC bureaucrats and policymakers rely on. New research regarding a regional climate in the U.S. substantiates the failed predictive capability of global climate models. As a result, these global climate models guarantee massive amounts of government investments being wasted on erroneous climate change impacts, such as more droughts in the southwest U.S..

Previous climate-model, droughts-floods and peer-reviewed postings. Climate-model and severe-weather charts.

Global Warming Science Facts: IPCC & MSM Lies, Myths and Hysteria Revealed By New, Inconvenient Data

The ever growing global warming science facts continue to make a shambles of the IPCC's and MSM's case that catastrophic global warming is ravaging Earth and humanity - the lies, myths and hysteria crumble under evidentiary weight

(click on images to enlarge)

The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.

The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.

Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.

The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.

Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.

Conclusion: Global warming science facts have completely demolished the lies, myths and hysteria of the IPCC and the MSM. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, these "institutions" don't falter in their pursuit of a political agenda based on falsehoods. For an expanding cornucopia of reasons, no longer does either institution deserve the belief or trust of the public.

Tide Gauge Station Data Analysis: NZ Scientists Confirm Sea Level Rise Is Modest - 7 Inches By 2100

An expert tide gauge station analysis out of New Zeland confirms the obvious - current global sea level rise is barely noticable, which is complete contradiction of IPCC predictions over past 2 decades

(image source)

Read here. New empirical evidence from New Zealand scientists document the lack of "accelerating" global sea level levels. The island nation in the southern Pacific has not been swamped by the rising seas and the confirmed trend indicates only a 7 inch rise by 2100.

The New Zealand documented trend is similar to those established by other research done by sea level experts.

"With respect to the South Pacific Ocean, the authors indicate that there are few reliable tide gauge records with data predating 1950...In an attempt to improve this data-sparse situation, Hannah and Bell say that "an investigation was undertaken to determine whether historical data from other tide gauge sites could provide additional spatial coverage of relative sea level trends around New Zealand."...the two New Zealand scientists report that "the average relative sea level rise calculated from the six newly derived trends was 1.7 ± 0.1 mm/year," a result that they say "is completely consistent with the far more rigorous and conventional analyses previously undertaken for the four main ports using long-term tide gauge records." And they write that "in a global context, this average trend in relative sea level rise is also consistent with the results of Church and White (2011), who find a global average linear trend in secular sea level rise of 1.7 ± 0.2 mm/year from 1900-2009."" [Jonh Hannah, Robert Bell 2012: Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans]

Conclusion: Tide gauge station analysis confirms global sea level rise is modest and not dangerously accelerating as long predicted by the IPCC's climate models and its "experts."

Previous failed-predictions, sea-level and peer-reviewed postings.

Connect The Dots Climate Change: Big Insurance Corrupts IPCC Climate Science To Gain Higher Policy Premiums

It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: Insurance companies love charging higher premiums - to justify those higher premiums, Big Insurance needs the IPCC to increase the hysteria about extreme weather events

(click on image to enlarge - image1 and image2 source)

Read here. We have written before about how the insurance industry sucks consumer wallets dry with hysterical climate change scenarios. And we've especially noted Munich Re's prior multiple attempts at bogus very questionable science.

The insurance industry stands to make billions, if not trillions, on achieving higher policy premiums by pushing the exaggerated fears and hysteria of extreme climate change. For one to understand what is going on, just simply connect the dots...to accomplish this pursuit of greed, Munich Re has realized that it's easier to do so if one buys a seat at the IPCC's "climate science" table.

"You’ve got to wonder when scientists like Stefan Rahmstorf  work hand in hand with the reinsurance industry, writing doomsday reports that help fatten the bottom line. Hartmut Grassl, a climate alarmist, is also connected to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer...points out how the Munich Re has at least two more agents at the IPCC. Working Group II AR5 Writing Teams, Chapter 10 — Key economic sectors and services, Eberhard Faust, Munich Reinsurance Company and an excerpt from a report from Dr Sandra Schuster, meteorologist with Munich Re, Sydney, who has just been appointed as a Lead Author (WG2) for IPCC AR5...It’s a real scam when the insurance industry buys up science and pays the science institutes and scientists to spread fear among its customers..."

Connect the dots climate change - big insurance is strictly motivated by greed and their official involvement simply corrupts any "findings" the next IPCC report promulgates regarding climate change impacts.

Previous postings on corruption of science by corporate concerns.

Global Warming Science Facts: Canada's Baffin Island Ice Core Proves Current Temperatures Not "Unprecedented"

The IPCC and related Climategate climate research agencies conveniently ignore empirical evidence that confirms today's temps are not unusual - data from the Penny ice cap is one such source

(click on image to enlarge)

Read here. Less than credible climate "science" sources, such as the IPCC, continue to claim today's temperatures are "unprecedented" or "unusual." These type of false statements firmly establish the anti-science stance of the political agenda the UN's IPCC agency is pursuing.

The recent global warming science facts from Canada's Baffin Island is another example of the overwhelming evidence that past global warming prior to industrial CO2 emissions was considerably higher.

A team of scientists, Zdanowicz et al., analyzing the summer water melt rate for the Penny ice cap determined its 2010 temperatures were consistent with temperatures of 3,000 years ago - meaning, that current temps are significantly below those of both the Roman and Minoan warming spans. [see their adjacent plot of ice core temps]

"A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that a large ice cap in the Canadian Arctic had surface temperatures higher than the present for the vast majority of the past 11,000 years. The paper also shows that the meltwater fraction in 2010 was slightly less than the vast majority of a 7000 year period from roughly 10,000 to 3000 years ago...At latitude 67°N, Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island is the southernmost large ice cap in the Canadian Arctic, yet its past and recent evolution is poorly documented. Here we present a synthesis of climatological observations...Recent surface melt rates are found to be comparable to those last experienced more than 3000 years ago." [Christian Zdanowicz, Anna Smetny-Sowa, David Fisher, Nicole Schaffer, Luke Copland, Joe Eley, Florent Dupont 2012: Journal of Geophysical Research]

Conclusion: The global warming science facts are unforgiving - the actual empirical evidence refutes claims by the IPCC and its Climategate scientists that modern temperatures are unprecedented within the higher northern latitudes. To be factually correct, a startling large number of extended periods over the past 7,500 years had global warming in excess of modern warming.

Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Addtional 'C3' climate/temperature charts.

Climate Change Effects: Agriculture Research Debunks IPCC Myth That Global Warming & CO2 Harm Crops

The latest agriculture research on climate change effects clearly prove that IPCC climate model predictions of looming crop failures are bogus - wheat study result opposite of IPCC fabricated myth

Read here. Without doing any original empirical agriculture research, the IPCC "scientists" programmed their computers to predict that agriculture crop output would decline with increasing levels of CO2 and global warming. Their reasoning behind this prediction was that increased warming would cause evaporation of soil moisture thus producing looming crop failures. The IPCC computer models were wrong, again.

Chinese scientists (Xiao et al.) studying climate change effects on crops performed original agricultural research on winter wheat that grows in two different semi-arid regions. Their results debunked the agriculture myths promulgated by the IPCC.

"...grew wheat in China at several different relatively high elevation sites (1,798 m at Tongwei and 2,351 m at LuLu Mountain), and the artificially increased the temperature up to 2.2ºC. At the Tonwei site, the elevated temperatures increased grain output by over 3% and by up to 6% at LuLu Mountain. Not surprisingly, they write “These findings indicate that an increase in temperature will improve the winter wheat yield at two different altitudes.”...“The results of this study revealed that a 0.6–2.2°C increase in temperature improved the water use efficiency (WUE) of winter wheat plants at both elevations evaluated.”...“It is expected that by 2030 warming temperatures and changes in rainfall will have led to the increase of 3.1% in wheat yields at a low altitudes and of 4.0% in wheat yields at high altitude in semiarid northwestern China, and that by 2050, there will have been the additional increase of 2.6% and 6.0%, respectively, at these altitudes”" [Guoju Xiaoa, Qiang Zhangb, Yu Lib, Runyuan Wangb, Yubi Yaob, Hong Zhaob, Huzhi Baib 2010: Agricultural Water Management]

Conclusions: Climate change effects of increasing levels of CO2 and global warming will enhance agriculture output for many crops, such as winter wheat. In addition, IPCC climate modeling, 'guesstimating,'  for global warming impacts has little basis in actual science.

Previous agriculture-forest-drought/flood, prediction-failure and peer-reviewed postings.

Tide Gauge Station Data Analysis: EU Scientists Confirm Sea Level Rise Not Unusual - IPCC Prediction Wrong

IPCC predicted accelerating sea level rises due to human CO2 emissions - real scientists examine the tide gauge station empirical evidence and find recent sea level increases not unusual

(click on map to enlarge - map source)

Read here. The evidence continues to pour in discrediting the IPCC's fabricated disaster claims of catastrophic sea level rises. Researchers from the around the world have documented that the predicted "accelerating" and "dangerous" sea level increases are not happening.

The latest research by Albrecht et al. focuses on sea levels near the Jutland peninsula (the German Bight). These EU researchers were unable to discern the "unprecedented" sea level increases from the actual empirical evidence, which is evidence that the mainstream media and the IPCC alarmists conveniently ignore.

"Focusing on regional mean sea level (RMSL) changes in the North Sea and, more precisely, in the German Bight, Albrecht et al. developed an index time series for the RMSL employing two different approaches...basing their work on homogenized annual mean sea level data covering the period 1843-2008 that were acquired by 15 tide gauges...suggesting that "regional mean sea level increased at rates between 1.64 and 1.74 mm/year with a 90% confidence range of 0.28 mm/year in each case." As for whether or not there was an acceleration in RMSL rise within the past few decades, they note that in terms of 20-year trends, the most recent rates are "relatively high." However, they report that these rates "are not unusual and that similar rates could also be identified earlier in the record."...they go on to note that "the same conclusion concerning a possible acceleration in the recent past was drawn by Haigh et al. (2009) for the North Sea region of the English Channel."" [Frauke Albrecht, Thomas Wahl, Jürgen Jensen, Ralf Weisse 2011: Ocean Dynamics]

Conclusion: EU scientists prove, using tide gauge station data, that the long predicted catastrophic sea level rise has not happened despite the global warming that has taken place since the Little Ice Age end.

Previous failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Rising sea level charts.

Extreme Climate Change Risk: Scientists Find Himalaya Severe Rainfall Evidence 'Baffling'

Researchers analyzing data for extreme climate change risk continue to discover evidence that the predicted results are not happening - lack of extreme rainfall in the Himalayas is most recent example

Read here. The "scientists" associated with the UN's IPCC had predicted severe weather events would increase both in frequency and intensity due to global warming. Unique areas of the world, such as the Himalayas, were considered to be especially vulnerable to these events.

To assess the extreme climate change risk that the Himalayas faced, researchers set out to document the severe rainfall events that were long predicted.

"Nandargi and Dhar decided to present "a brief review of the available information and data for extreme rainfall events that were experienced in different sectors of the Himalayas during the last 137 years" in an attempt to determine "the impact of climate change on the extreme one-day rainfall of the Himalayan region, in the context of rising temperatures."...Working with data obtained from 475 measurement stations...said that there is an increase in the frequencies of extreme rainfall events from the 1951-1960 decade onwards," but only until "there was a sudden decrease in the frequency of extreme rainfall events in all the four categories in the recent period of 2001-2007...concluding words of the two scientists, "it is somewhat baffling as to whether climate change has any impact on extreme rainfall events in the entire Himalayan region..." [S. Nandargia, O. N. Dhara 2011: Hydrological Sciences Journal]

Conclusion: The extreme climate change risk promulgated by the big global insurance companies and their scientific minions has proven to be without merit when the actual empirical evidence is closely scrutinized.

Previous severe-weather, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Greenhouse Gas Facts: Official NASA Temp Data Indicate Less Than A 1 Degree Increase By End of Century

The actual greenhouse gas facts are considered to be weak evidence of catastrophic global warming hypothesis by the vast majority of scientists - latest NASA-GISS empirical information confirms why

(click on image to enlarge)

The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that even the vast majority of alarmist climate scientists (over 97%) agree that the predicted "accelerating" global warming has been non-existent over the last 15 years.

The greenhouse gas facts are so starkly inconvenient for the IPCC that its apostles have had to resort to outright fraud. This has been the unfortunate result in their attempt to discredit any scientist who analyzes the actual facts, such as the adjacent plot of global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

"NYT's Revkin unloads on Peter Gleick! 'Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others'...Revkin: 'One way or the other, ...That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I'm sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)'...His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland's leadership insists is fake'"

Conclusion: Greenhouse gas facts continue to be very weak empirical evidence of catastrophic CO2-induced global warming as hypothesized by the UN's IPCC and its associated "scientists."

• Last 15 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.77 degree increase by 2100
• Last 10 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.07 degree increase by 2100
  

For additional temperature charts, visit these 'C3' pages: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts. Note: Linear trends are not predictions.

Climate Modeling Failure: IPCC Models Unable Predict The Major 'Siberian High' Climatic Condition

Climate modeling failure remains a major embarrassment for the UN's IPPC's "climate science" efforts - this time their models failed at predicting the 'Siberian Highs' that dominate Northern Hemisphere weather

(click on image to enlarge - source NASA)

Read here. The 'Siberian High' (SH) is a major winter condition that drives much of the weather conditions throughout the Northern Hemisphere. It is a natural high pressure atmospheric climate phenomenon that varies from year to year, located principally across the Eurasian land mass.

The IPCC's climate modeling systems predicted that global warming would cause a significant reduction in the intensity of the SH. However, new peer reviewed research proves that the climate models were wrong - over the last two decades the SH intensity increased.

"In a study designed to determine to what degree the temporal SH intensity simulations of these models mimic reality, Jeong et al. employed two observational gridded sea level pressure (SLP) data sets...the seven scientists revealed "a pronounced declining trend of the SH intensity from the late 1960s to the early 1990s," which would appear to mesh well with GCM simulations presented in the IPCC AR4...However, they report that in the real world, the declining SH intensity trend "was sharply replaced by a fast recovery over the last two decades." And they thus make a strong point of noting that "this feature has not been successfully captured by the GCM simulations..."an improvement in predicting the future climate change in regional scale is desirable."" [Jee-Hoon Jeong, Tinghai Ou, Hans W. Linderholm, Baek-Min Kim, Seong-Joong Kim, Jong-Seong Kug, Deliang Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]

Conclusion: Climate modeling failure is the standard operating procedure for the immensely expensive virtual simulations that the IPCC and associated climate agencies have poured billions into. They remain unable to provide accurate predictions that policymakers can rely on.

Previous climate-model, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Climate Modeling: Failure of IPCC's Newest Climate Models - 'Still Worthless After All These Years'

Climate modeling failure by the IPCC's past climate models is huge and well documented - the newest climate models are no better

(click on image to enlarge)

Read here. Expert analyst Bob Tisdale performs a close scrutiny of the new IPCC climate models and discovers they still do an abysmal job at predicting the past ('hindcast' of) global temperatures.

Despite billions of dollars of climate modeling expenditures and millions of person-hours of software efforts by model programmers since 2007, the latest and greatest computer simulations still cannot accurately portray the known past.

Adding misery to an already abysmal failure, the newest models' predictive outputs are barely different than the older models. Just as a reminder of the worthlessness of IPCC computer simulations, there is not a single past climate model that predicted this massive change in climate.

Conclusion: Climate modeling failure will always be significant and will never provide accurate climate predictions until they are finally cleansed of the CO2-biased parameters imposed/dictated by the UN's own IPCC's political-agenda.

Previous climate-model postings and charts-diagrams.

Is Global Warming Happening? IPCC Climate Models Predicted Huge Warming But Reality Happened Instead

For years the public wondered "Is global warming happening?" as the IPCC climate models predicted - instead the HadCRUT temperature dataset clearly shows global temps cooling off

(click on image to enlarge)

The adjacent chart documents the facts on the ground, so-to-speak, and easily answers the question: Is global warming happening?

The simple answer from the empirical observations is 'No.'

The IPCC climate models, using the business-as-usual CO2 emissions scenario A1F1 predicted a best estimate of global temperature increase of +4.0 degrees by year 2100. That prediction was based on year 2000 being the starting point.

Thus, per the IPCC model(s), by February 2012 the global temperatures should have already increased to 14.75 degrees C (pink dotted line) based on a 12-month moving average. Instead, since 2000, the HadCRUT global temperature has only slightly increased (red dotted line).

Below is a synopsis of linear trends of the model prediction and actual observations:

• IPCC predicted: +4.0°C increase by year 2100
• Since 1/1/1990 actual: +1.3°C increase by year 2100
• Since 1/1/2000 actual: +0.4°C increase by year 2100
• Since 1/1/2002 actual: -0.7°C decrease by year 2100
  

Despite human CO2 emissions continuing to grow in a 'business-as-usual' manner (grey curve, black dots), global warming has stopped and is currently declining, as the blue columns of the chart indicate. The blue fitted trend curve reveals the current direction of global temperatures - 'global cooling' would be the more accurate description for the last 10 years.

Conclusion: Is global warming happening?

Global warming has monotonously creeped to a point of global cooling since the 1998 peak temperatures. CO2 levels appear to have little, if any, direct impact on direction or magnitude of changes in global temperatures.

Why has global warming turned to cooling or, as some prefer, "stalled"? For the confusion that reigns over that issue read here.

[Note: To calculate rolling 12-month average of HadCRUT absolute temperatures, 'C3' used the HadCRUT global monthly anomalies plus the monthly absolutes found here. 'By year 2100' increases/decrease calculated using the 12-mth moving average absolutes. Although the A1F1 scenario starts in year 2000, the above Excel chart includes data back to 1990 to provide a visual context. Additional info on emission scenarios.]

For additional temperature charts, visit these 'C3' pages: Modern, regional, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts.

Severe Weather Events: Tornadoes of 2011, The Final Analysis - Data Reveal No Trend For The Violent Storms

Without any empirical evidence, the mainstream media continues to report that global warming is causing an increase of severe weather events - latest scientific analysis of tornadoes disproves IPCC alarmist claims to be meritless

Read here. The IPCC continues to push the bogus claim that "global warming" (supposedly due to human CO2) is (and will) causing more severe weather events with the publication of their new 'SREX' report.

The incredibly stupid and lazy journalists covering climate science dutifully report the desired summary propaganda that the IPCC wants heard. Yet if they made any effort, the reporters would soon discover that the empirical evidence does not support the the IPCC hypothesis that past warming has caused more severe weather.

The adjacent violent tornado chart is a clear cut example that alarmist claims of more severe weather due to warming is indeed not factual.

In addition, climate science journalists are soooo lazy, and obviously enraptured (cult-like?) with misleading the public about climate disasters, they always seem to miss the IPCC's fine print, such as this in the new 'SREX' report:

“While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to the question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme.”...“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.”...“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados.”...“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses.”

Conclusions: First, severe weather events have not increased as a result of global warming - in fact, even the IPCC admits there is no increasing trend of said events. Second, climate science reporters and the mainstream media continue to mislead and misinform the public and policymakers with bogus reports of 'cherry-picked' extreme weather events, both current and predicted.

Previous severe-weather postings and charts. Actual list of severe weather events.

After 20 Years, An IPCC Admission of Failure: What Do You Know About Global Warming?

What do you know about global warming? In the case of the IPCC, maybe you know a lot more - IPCC finally admits that paving over tropical forests is a major factor in climate change

Read here. Most people, having even an ounce of common sense, would correctly conclude that paving over agricultural lands with asphalt or that destroying forests to plant bio-fuel crops would have a major influence on temperatures. Amazingly, for the past 20 years, the IPCC has claimed that changes in such 'land-use' had little impact.

The IPCC and its closely controlled peer review journals have now admitted that land-use changes do indeed have a major impact on climate change and local/regional and even global temperatures. The IPCC will now include land-use changes as a major forcing in its "climate bible" assessments.

Honestly, is it any wonder the IPCC's climate models have been abysmally bad over the last 20 years at predicting global temperatures when such an obviously idiotic failure is finally admitted to?

"There is an article in the March 15 2012 issue of Nature that finally elevates land use change to its proper level as a first order climate forcing. While the article still does not recognize that land conversion, particularly in the low latitudes but also in the boreal forest regions continues and, therefore, will add further to how humans are altering the climate, it is an important step for the IPCC to finally make. In 1995 I resigned from the IPCC after efforts to get them to mention this issue were rebuffed..."

What do you know about global warming? The IPCC and its impact on tropical deforestation

Because the IPCC failed to correctly recognize, identify and publicly state that land-use changes were a primary driver of climate change and temperatures, wealthy individuals like George Soros and Richard Branson have been provided incentives to trash natural forested habitats, to be replaced with money producing bio-fuel agriculture plots (e.g., palm plantations). Now that the IPCC has belatedly recognized the importance of land-use changes on climate, possibly the world's wealthy elites will no longer be able to invest in major natural habitat changing projects.

Previous non-CO2 climate impacts and bio-fuel postings.

Unprecedented Antarctica Climate Change: Polar Experts Document Large Climate Shifts Prior To 1850's

The IPCC and Michael Mann claimed that modern Antarctica climate change is "unprecedented' - new polar research demolishes that myth

Read here. Without doing any scientific field research, the IPCC and Climategate's Michael Mann chose to promulgate a non-scientific position that the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age were only local European phenomena. Their political agenda was to establish the myth that Antarctica climate change was unaffected by the MWP and the LIA.

That myth is no longer sustainable.

The team of Lu et al. published new research conclusively proving that the Antarctica continent also experienced both the MWP and LIA. In essence, the climate of previous centuries is similar to the climate Antarctica now has (as depicted in the adjacent image) - the modern South Pole climate is not "unprecedented."

"At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon...However, Professor Lu has shown that this isn’t true – and the evidence lies with a rare mineral called ikaite, which forms in cold waters...The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the ‘Little Ice Age,’ approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the Medieval Warm Period before it...‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’...They were able to deduce this by studying the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes found in the crystals." [Zunli Lu, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, Hilary Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Richard D. Pancost, Samuel Shaw, Alistair Lennie, Julia Wellner, John B. Anderson 2012: Earth and Planetary Science Letters]

Conclusion: Modern Antarctica climate change is not unusual; is likely to have nothing to do with CO2 emissions; and similar climate variation happened in the past.

Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings.

Natural Harmonic Climate Model Proven Superior To IPCC & NASA Failed Climate Models

The failed climate models of the IPCC and NASA have revealed the terminal weakness of the AGW hypothesis - but new research and models are coming online that better explain global warming and climate change

(click on images to enlarge)

Read here and here.  The impressive success of the harmonic astronomical climate model (left chart) is in the realm of spectacular when compared to the robust, abysmal performance of the IPCC's (middle chart) and NASA's (right chart) traditional CO2-based climate models. The failure of the CO2-centric models is due in large part to their inability to reproduce the known decadal and multi-decadal oscillations that are part and parcel to the world's climate.

The significant failure of the IPCC / NASA climate models, and the AGW hypothesis they are derived from, is captured in its entire absurdity here. Literally, the avid proponents of the failed CO2-driven AGW hypothesis first admit to there being essentially zero warming over the last 10 years, and then try to rationalize the disappearance of warming with a diversity of speculations other than the obvious - that the current IPCC and NASA climate theory is bankrupt.

Below are excerpts that reveal the collective, "consensus" befuddlement of Climategate scientists towards global warming (or lack thereof):

John Barnes, climate scientist: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s
assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.

Robert Kaufman, climate scientist: "...released a modeling study suggesting that the hiatus in warming could be due entirely to El Niño and increased sulfates from China’s coal burning."

Martin Wild, climate scientist: "During the 1980s and ’90s, the rapid decline of air pollution in the United States and Europe dominated the world’s aerosol trends. While those emissions have continued to decline in the West, returns, from a brightening standpoint, ...“It’s not an obvious overall trend anymore,”..."

Susan Solomon, climate scientist: "“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,” ...Solomon had shown that between 2000 and 2009, the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere declined by about 10 percent. This decline, caused either by natural variability — perhaps related to El Niño — or as a [negative] feedback to climate change, likely countered 25 percent of the warming that would have been caused by rising greenhouse gases..."

Kenneth Trenberth, climate scientist: "Until 2003, scientists had a reasonable understanding where the sun’s trapped heat was going; it was reflected in rising sea levels and temperatures. Since then, however, heat in the upper ocean has barely increased and the rate of sea level rise slowed,...they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down."

James Hansen, climate scientist: "All the climate models, compared to the Argo data and a tracer study soon to be released by several NASA peers, exaggerate how efficiently the ocean mixes heat into its recesses....that climate models have been overestimating the amount of energy in the climate,...“Less efficient mixing, other things being equal, would mean that there is less warming ‘in the pipeline,’” ....it also implies that the negative aerosol forcing is probably larger than most models assumed."

Graeme Stephens, climate scientist: "It suggests there isn’t a missing energy. Trenberth disagrees with this analysis, and it’s likely to be a question of ongoing debate."

Judith Lean, climate scientist: "The answer to the hiatus, according to Judith Lean, is all in the stars. Or rather, one star...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.” According to Lean, the combination of multiple La Niñas and the solar minimum, bottoming out for an unusually extended time in 2008 from its peak in 2001, are all that’s needed to cancel out the increased warming from rising greenhouse gases."

Ben Santer, climate scientist: “All of these things contribute to the relative muted warming,”..."The difficultly is figuring out the relative contribution of these things. You can’t do that without systematic modeling and experimentation. I would hope someone will do that.”...“Even if you have the hypothetical perfect model, if you leave out the wrong forcings, you will get the wrong answer.”

John Daniel, climate scientist: “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.”

Conclusion: The failed climate models (that "scientists" from the IPCC and NASA livelihoods are dependent on) are based on a discredited CO2 hypothesis that is unable to explain the global climate's fluctuations. Newer models based on natural causations, be they of cosmic and/or earthly origin, are better able to explain global climate change, including decadal and multi-decadal temperature variation.

Previous climate model postings and charts.

Climate Models: New Expert Consensus Confirms That IPCC & NASA Models Significantly Overestimated Climate Sensitivity

Skeptics' views regarding catastrophic global warming have been proven correct - experts now believe that climate models have overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels

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.

New research on current climate models

"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..."

Conclusion: The alarmist predictions of catastrophic global warming have been incorrectly based on the exaggerated climate sensitivity programmed into the climate models of major climate research agencies, including those that the IPCC relies on.

Previous climate-model postings and modern temperature charts.

The IPCC, Trenberth and Hurricanes: Climate Change Science & Global Warming Alarmism Done The 'Peter Gleick' Way

'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example

Read here (h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.

Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":

"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."

And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.

"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

Hmmm...maybe Trenberth's personna of climate science incompetence is instead an actual embracement of the 'Peter Gleick' methodology, no?

IPCC's Climate Models' Positive Feedback Assumption Proven To Be Incorrect, Per The Actual Empirical Evidence

The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead

Read here. The IPCC claims of a positive feedback mechanism that would cause runaway global warming, and a climate change tipping point, have never been validated as being climate science reality. Yet the IPCC's climate models all employ this phantom positive feedback, resulting in their infamous predictions of catastrophic climate events.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years.

"A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”...The average global cloud height is linked to the average global temperature—generally, the higher the average cloud height, the higher the average surface temperature, and vice versa...A point well-recognized by Davies and Molloy when they write “Changes in cloud properties in response to rising surface temperatures represent some of the strongest, yet least understood, feedback processes in the climate system.“..."If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature."...According to the calculations of Davies and Molloy, the negative climate forcing from a decrease in the average global cloud amount during the past 10 years has more than offset the positive forcing from an increase in greenhouse gases from human activities." [Roger Davies, Mathew Molloy 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Previous failed-prediction, negative-positive feedback and peer-reviewed postings.

NOAA's 2011 Global Temperature Dataset Released & Confirms That IPCC's "Global Warming" Is DOA

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just released today their global temperature dataset for the year ending 2011 (and yes, they conducted another bizarre revision of the entire historical dataset - more on that in a later posting). (click on images to enlarge)

The chart on the left plots the NCDC global temperatures for the last 15 years ending 2011, plus the atmospheric CO2 levels. As the empirical evidence undeniably shows, there is no correlation between global temps and CO2, and the blue curve actually suggests a movement towards a cooling era.

The linear trend for the NCDC temperatures represents an increase by year 2100 of only +0.40°C degree - definitely not "accelerating" warming using anyone's definition. (see new post on "accelerating" here)

The measly "global warming" of the last 15 years is one story and another interesting story about global warming is found in looking at the last 100 years. When the 100 year span is broken into 50-year segments, one ending 2011 and the other ending 1961, the myth of dangerous global warming from human CO2 emissions really starts to unravel. (see update with HadCRUT temperature data)

The first red bar on second chart (chart on right) represents the increase of the 2011 mean temperature over that of 1961; the second red bar represents the increase of the 1961 mean temperature over that of 1911. Clearly, the increase of the mean temperature during the first 50-year period surpasses that of the last 50-year period ending 2011.

And the greater increase in mean temperature during the first 50 year period took place with a smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as depicted by the grey bars. In fact, the CO2 level increase over the last 50 years was greater than 4 times the earlier 50-year period.

The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.

Summary: Both global warming and cooling have happened in the recent past, and both will occur again over the next 100 years, regardless of CO2 emissions.

Additional modern and historical temperature charts.

Data sources for Excel charts: NCDC monthly anomalies, annual anomalies, monthly CO2 levels and annual CO2 levels.

Antarctica: IPCC Proven Conclusively Wrong By Newest Research - South Pole Cooling

The Antarctica climate evidence is irrefutable - the southern polar region is cooling, not warming as IPCC predicted

(click on images to enlarge)

Read here. The chart on the left is new empirical evidence released by the German climate research organization, the Alfred Wegener Institute. Their polar weather station temperature records clearly confirm the cooling trend as previously measured by satellite over the last 30 years (chart on the right).

In addition, a new peer reviewed study found that over the last 30 years the Antarctica snowmelt has been trending down, which substantiates the observed cooler temperatures as the above plots show.

"Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades.....The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states, "other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability." Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf." [P. Kuipers Munneke, G. Picard, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, E. van Meijgaard 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Previous polar-ice-sheet-glacier, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Modern and regional temperature charts.

Scientists Predicted Australia Would Become The 'Drought' Continent: They Were Wrong

Read here, here and here.

As this updated climate map reveals, the severe drought condition for Australia during 2011 was essentially non-existent. The IPCC-based climate science predicted more frequent and intense droughts, which has not been the case.

Previous severe-weather and failed-prediction postings. Severe-weather charts.

The IPCC's Killing Machines: Unable To Predict Accurately, IPCC Climate Models Ultimately Cause Deaths

Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example

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."

NASA Vs. IPCC: One Finds Global Warming, The Other Global Cooling - Which Is Correct?

Since 1998 the IPCC's HadCRUT reports global cooling - neither Nasa's GISS nor HadCRUT report "dangerous," nor "accelerating," nor "runaway," nor "tipping point" nor "irreversible" global warming

Unfortunately, almost every family has to suffer with the typical "useful idiot" family member during the holidays who has relied on MSNBC, ABC (Australia), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC or CNN for their climate information. Soooo...below is a Christmas stocking stuffer to be pulled out at the appropriate time when the family idiot starts spewing the mainstream media left / liberal / progressive / Democrat climate anti-science.

The IPCC's climate reports' gold-standard for global averages is the HadCRUT temperature dataset. Since the end of 1997, the HadCRUT global average shows an actual global cooling trend, not warming (-0.03C degrees/century). And since the end of 2000, this IPCC gold-standard has global cooling trend increasing to a -0.6C degree/century. (click on charts to enlarge)

The blue trend line is the IPCC's best-of-breed temperature dataset. Nasa's GISS dataset is represented by the red trend and NOAA's NCDC dataset by the green trend.

From the above, we can surmise the following:

1. Despite record setting human CO2 emissions over the past decade, they have not caused "dangerous," "accelerating," "runaway," "tipping point" or "irreversible" global warming

2. Per the IPCC gold-standard, a slight global cooling trend has developed since the end of 1997, and is more prominent since the end of 2000

3. Despite two large El Nino (extreme warming) events since 1997, the global temperatures per the IPCC gold-standard have trended down (through November 2011)

4. None of the IPCC's climate models predicted deceleration of global warming, let alone the actual global cooling

5. Whether it's the HadCRUT or GISS or NCDC temperature trends shown above, "accelerating" global warming is not reality - the opposite is reality

6. A worst case warming scenario based on recent trends (GISS or NCDC, not HadCRUT) might range from a +0.3C to +0.9C warming by year 2100 (trends are not predictions)

7. The climate sensitivity to CO2 atmospheric levels has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC

8. The hysterically claimed climate temperature "tipping point" is just that - hysteria

9. Natural climate and/or cyclical phenomenon has likely had a much greater influence on global temperatures than the immense human CO2 emissions

10. There is no "consensus" among HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC regarding global temperatures

With our listing of both the GISS and NCDC trends above (in addition to HadCRUT), one may wonder why they are not considered the IPCC's gold-standard. Well, regarding Nasa's GISS, a scientist from GISS has stated the following to an USA Today journalist:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [HadCRUT] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

So, even the GISS folks hardly view their global temperature dataset as being the gold-standard, why should the IPCC?

Regarding the NOAA/NCDC temperature series, a recent analysis of their dataset revisions show a continuous monthly adjustment effort of historical temperatures that signify more a political agenda versus an impartial science objective. Amazingly, in the month of November 2011 alone, NCDC has published at least 4 different versions of their temperature dataset.

More importantly, the current NOAA chief has turned the science agency into a political and global warming hothouse, where facts and evidence are fabricated or subject to ludicrous revisionism for green political purposes. NOAA has become a science joke and the IPCC can ill afford hitching their wagon to another Green Mafia controlled outfit. Thus, no "gold-standard" for the NCDC temperature dataset.

That leaves the HadCRUT dataset as the gold-standard, which, by the way, finds the globe cooling, not warming - hmmm...did we say that already?

Merry Christmas!