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.

Major UN IPCC Prediction Failure: Global Warming Does Not Cause Spread of Disease, Scientists Find

The United Nation's IPCC agency has long predicted that the infectious disease malaria will spread due to global warming - new study says that's false

Read here. Like so many of the catastrophic claims and predictions that the IPCC has ginned up to scare policymakers and the public, the fear of malaria's spread from global warming was very effective. The only problem with the malaria claim was that the empirical evidence did not support it. It's another failed prediction by the very troubled UN climate agency.

New research by Paaijmans et al finally buries this specific piece of IPCC B.S. fear-mongering that left / liberal media "science" pundits (Romm and Revkin) always push on their gullible, anti-science audience.

"A common assumption is that rising global temperatures will increase the spread of malaria — the deadly mosquito-borne disease that affects millions of people worldwide. But a study...finds that warmer temperatures seem to slow transmission of malaria-causing parasites, by reducing their infectiousness...Simon Hay, an expert in malarial epidemiology at the University of Oxford, UK, who in 2010 reported a scant correlation between malaria and global warming, says that the study could have wide significance...Rising temperatures “may well contribute to the host of other changes that have occurred during the last 100 years that have caused malaria to contract in extent and intensity globally,” he says." [Krijn P. Paaijmans, Simon Blanford, Brian H. K. Chan, Matthew B. Thomas 2011: Biology Letters]

Previous health-related, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

The Embarrassing & Total Collapse of The IPCC's Antarctica Alarmist "Science"

All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets

The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.

In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.

Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?

"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”

Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.

"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"

Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.

"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."

Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?

IPCC Scientist Responsible For Bogus Antarctica Warming Study Suppresses His Critics' Research

IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study

Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.

As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.

How about this interesting example?

Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.

"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."

The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.

"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though.  Crack cocaine for advocates.  A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent.  Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."

In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)

Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.

Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?

Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.

99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.

Latest Climate Research Determines Modern Global Warming Primarily A Result of Natural Forces, Not CO2

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions found to be less of a climate forcing than the UN's IPCC climate models assume

Read here. The IPCC's climate modelers purposefully designed the computer models to implicate human CO2 emissions as the major culprit for global warming and climate change. As the climatic empirical evidence kept growing though, it became obvious these models were atrocious at climate prediction, specifically due to their myopic reliance on CO2 as the principal global warming forcing.

As the majority of scientists are now coming to believe, new research from Humlum et al. determines that indeed human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of global warming. The peer-reviewed research clearly implicates the climate's natural variability as the driving force of global warming.

"...we demonstrate how such persistent natural variations can be used for hindcasting and forecasting climate. Our main focus is on identifying the character (timing, period, amplitude) of such recurrent natural climate variations, but we also comment on the likely physical explanations for some of the identified cyclic climate variations. The causes of millennial climate changes remain poorly understood, and this issue remains important for understanding causes for natural climate variability over decadal- and decennial time scales...►We identified persistent cyclic variations in records from Svalbard and Greenland. ► Some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth. ► Some identified cycles correspond to solar variations. ► Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations." [Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheimc, Kjell Stordahld 2011: Global and Planetary Change]

Previous climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

The Utter Failure of IPCC Climate Model's Prediction of Ocean Global Warming Is Documented

The climate models used by IPCC are incapable of predicting sea surface temperatures (global warming) with any reliability

Read here. Utilizing climate agency provided data and the commonly installed computer spreadsheet program called Excel, Bob Tisdale does a thorough analysis of ocean temperatures and climate model predictions. In a nutshell, Bob's comparative analysis clearly shows how worthless the climate models truly are.

(As an aside, from the Climategate2.0 emails we learn that the top IPCC scientists are so busy plotting and conspiring against other scientists they don't have the time to learn this powerful analytical tool called Excel. This may explain why the IPCC is so clueless about the robust failures of climate models, no?)

The above charts (click to enlarge) produced by Tisdale show both the Northern and Southern hemisphere actual sea surface temperatures (blue). The charts include the IPCC's climate model projection (red) for the last 17 years. As can be seen, the reality of sea surface temperatures and global warming is significantly different than what the IPCC's climate models predicted.

Per the climate models, the projected warming by 2100 is 5 times greater than the trend based on reality in the Southern Hemisphere and approximately 3 times greater for the Northern Hemisphere. This level of climate model error truly makes the IPCC projections worthless even for decadal periods, let alone for year 2100.

Yet, despite the obvious model failure, climate scientists whose financial security is dependent on the taxpayer dole continue to claim in public that climate model projections are accurate, if not the holy gospel of climate science. In private though, the Climategate2.0 emails indicate that climate scientists have little regard for the billion dollar climate model failures.

Welcome to the world of UN-IPCC climate science corruption.

The Lies of Durban: Kyoto CO2 Emissions Controls Were A Success

The UN experts predicted that Kyoto Protocol would reduce global CO2 emissions by 5.2%....instead they increased by 46.6%

A 'C3' chart

Source

Source1 & Source2

Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.

In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.

Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)

The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.

The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.

The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.

However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.

This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.

"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."

Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?

Stefan Rahmstorf: Major UN IPCC Climategate Scientist Becomes Joke, Found Guilty By German Court

United Nations IPCC Climategate scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf, found guilty of attacking journalist

Read here. The UN's Stefan Rahmstorf is very well known for fabricating extreme sea level increase predictions that have absolutely no basis in reality. His insane sea level predictions for year 2100 are not widely believed, with the exception of your typical liberal/left/progressive politicians such as Obama, Al Gore and Jon Huntsman.

In addition to his massively failed sea level predictions, the IPCC's Rahmstorf has now been found guilty of false assertions, resulting in a German court issuing a 'cease and desist' order to prevent Rahmstorf from further attacking a female journalist for investigating the facts about his "science."

In essence, Rahmstorf appears to be that ugly combination of IPCC climate science pervert and a stalker-type. Fortunately, the courts are putting a stop to his perverted attack on journalists. (image source)

"The State Court ruling against Rahmstorf is a cease and desist order that requires Rahmstorf to refrain from making the false assertions about the journalist. Yet at the PIK website the statement, on behalf of Rahmstorf?) was clearly implying there had been “errors” when in fact there weren’t. According to Der Spiegel, the PIK has since revised the text at its site. Obviously it’s not the journalist Meichsner that’s sloppy and loose with the facts. The Court was very clear on that...Der Spiegel reminds readers that this is not the first time that Rahmstorf has maliciously taken on people who do not share his opinion and speak out."

Chinese Research Documents The Major Failings of IPCC Climate Model Physics - Models Are Wrong

The UN's IPCC climate models found, by scientists, to be abject failures at global warming and/or climate change predictions

Read here. It is now believed by over 97% of all physical science scientists that the IPCC's climate models have failed to accurately predict recent changes in global temperatures and associated climate change. The inconvenient facts of climate model prediction failure have become well known and are no longer denied by the world's science community.

• (Note to readers: Try to find a single PhD in physical sciences whom actually believes, and will state in writing, that the climate computer simulations have been accurate over the last 15 years....good luck with that.)

The latest peer-reviewed research by Chinese scientists, Fu et al., substantiates what the vast majority of scientists have concluded: IPCC computer climate models are presently incapable of producing accurate climate predictions and will continue to be unable to do so for the foreseeable future.

"In setting the stage for their study, the authors note that the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that climate projections based on models that consider both human and natural factors provide "credible quantitative estimates of future climate change." However, as they continue, mismatches between IPCC AR4 model ensembles and observations, especially the multi-decadal variability (MDV), "have cast shadows on the confidence of the model-based decadal projections of future climate,"...evaluated "many individual runs of AR4 models in the simulation of past global mean temperature," focusing on the performance of individual runs of models included in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase three (CMIP3) in simulating the multi-decadal variability of the past global mean temperature...they determined that "most of the individual model runs fail to reproduce the MDV of past climate, which may have led to the overestimation of the projection of global warming for the next 40 years or so."" [CongBin Fu, Cheng Qian, ZhaoHua Wu 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]

Previous climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

The UN Lies of Durban: Severe Weather Is Increasing Due To Human CO2 Emissions

The UN's Climategate scientists and bureaucrats continue pushing the "severe weather" lies at Durban IPCC climate conference

Since time immemorial, humans have been talking about how bad the weather has been over the 'past year' or over the 'past growing season.' This uniquely human trait is often exhibited throughout the ancient text of the Bible. Yet the corrupt United Nations and its Climategate perpetrators continue to claim that recent bad weather is actually only due to "global warming" and human CO2 emissions.

• Unfortunately for the UN 'liars of Durban,' the world's previous severe weather incidents includes a gigantic list of bad weather events happening well before dangerous CO2 levels.

• In addition, the immense preponderance of modern climate peer-reviewed studies can find no connection between human CO2 emissions and modern severe weather.

And now, adding further empirical evidence misery to the UN's Climategate liars' claims, comes this startling factoid: severe hurricane landfalls in the U.S. have plummeted over the last 6 years!

Combine these type of actual facts with the recent extreme weather science report that is being suppressed at Durban ("Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"), and it is no wonder that public and policymaker support for global warming and climate change policies has crumbled over the last few years - bureaucracy lies and science corruption usually have that sort of outcome, thankfully.

The UN Lies of Durban: Global Warming Is "Unprecedented," "Unquivocal" & "Accelerating"

The United Nations bureaucrats & its Climagegate scientists continue pushing the big lies of man-made global warming and climate change

It has been well documented, and agreed to by the vast majority of climate scientists, that global warming has subsided since 1996. This has occurred despite the large increase in CO2 levels; and, of course, despite the prognostications of the UN's Climategate-savant "scientists" who apparently spend most of their research time and monies plotting against other scientists than doing actual science.

With the recent publication of October 2011 HadCRUT global temperatures (the IPCC's gold-standard), it is again confirmed by the empirical evidence that global warming is not driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, which means that the feared climate change is not being driven by man-made CO2 emissions either. 

Climate Models Vs. Reality

15 Years - October 2011

17 Years - October 2011

As the above charts reveal, the United Nation's Durban climate conference claims that human CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented, unequivocal and accelerating warming (ie. climate change) are nothing more than fabricated, robust lies. The left most chart plots actual global temperatures (HadCRUT and GISS) versus the predicted outcomes of one of the preeminent climate models. (click on each image to enlarge)

The middle chart plots global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels over the most recent 15 years ending October 2011. The chart on the right is same data plotted but for the 17-year span ending October 2011 (some Climategate scientists insist an extra 2 years makes all the difference when speaking of global warming). The polynomial fitted curves on these two charts indicate that global warming is becoming cooling, and at most, global warming is projected to be less than 1 degree by 2100.

And, as these charts reveal, clearly the IPCC's favored climate models are significantly wrong by orders of magnitude that smack of total incompetence. The UN's anti-scientific claims of global warming, repeated by political hacks like of Al Gore, Obama and Jon Huntsman, are meritless lies designed to push the agenda of global governance favored by the elites, the wealthy and the corporate special interests.

The lies that perpetuate the global warming and climate change hysteria exhibited by Durban conferees are both insidous and never-ending (note the most recent release of Climategate emails). These lies emanate from the bowels of the UN's IPCC and its senior climate "scientists" with no shame or remorse.

"OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, I’ve made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more. I just accepted that you can’t be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. It’s heady, treacherous stuff...I have been a victim of that same self-delusion myself. I understand the sweet seduction that arises from the conviction that your mission is of vital, crucial importance to the whole planet."

Prominent Chinese Climate Scientists Conclude IPCC Is Worthless: "restricted by its political tendencies"

Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail...empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.

Read here. The world's science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN's IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.

The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC's "consensus" climate science:

"...with regard to the IPCC claim that "the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming," they note the following four problems:

(1) "it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,"

(2) "over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration," since "for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,"

(3) "there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature," and

(4) "the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere." [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]

Unfortunately, the establishment apparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.

Previous peer-reviewed postings.

IPCC's Prediction That CO2 Will Cause High Temperatures Found Wildly Wrong, Scientists Confirm

Read here. It is well documented that the IPCC's climate "experts" (software programmers) inserted a very high (unproven) CO2 climate sensitivity into the computer climate models. For PR propaganda purposes, the IPCC's climate simulations then foretold a future climate of potentially high temperatures due to the mysterious "tipping point."

As this typical climate model prediction chart reveals though, there is an obvious real-time problem with the IPCC programmers' assumption that the climate is highly sensitive to high levels of atmospheric CO2.

New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of "accelerating" global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong. The research confirms previous studies that the projected future tipping point climate conditions were falsehoods. The actual science again proves global warming skeptics to be correct and, more robustly, that anti-science global warming alarmists, such as Chris Mooney, to be...well...er...pathological liars, exaggerators hysteria-loving alarmists who ignore climate reality.

Much to the major chagrin of climate alarmists everywhere, the Schmittner et al. team conclude that an approximate global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees is a much more likely outcome than the over-inflated 5.0 degrees publicized by the IPCC. This new finding makes the upcoming IPCC's the-world-is-melting convention in Durban, South Africa the penultimate farce.

"There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C....In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”...results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions..." [Schmittner, A., et al., 2011: Science]

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

The IPCC's Unequivocal Climate Liars: Satellites Prove That Global Warming Is Not "Unequivocal"

Land - October 2011	Sea - October 2011	Air - October 2011

The above temperature reconstructions of satellite measurements are as of the end of October 2011. The white areas of each (land, sea and air) represent zero to insignificant temperature cooling/warming; yellow-orange-red colors represent warming; and the blueish areas represent cooling. (click on images to enlarge)

Clearly, what the world's best scientific-based technology tells us is that global warming is not "unequivocal" as most IPCC Climategate scientists robustly claim. In fact, as has been well documented by numerous studies, including BEST, significant warming has been basically absent for some 15 years, which has caused great befuddlement for the IPCC's climate "scientists."

At any point in time, at anyplace on the globe, there could be significant warming, while significant cooling is simultaneously happening at another locale, and both can be associated with vast regional areas of insignificant temperature change. When speaking of "unequivocal" global warming, there is no such thing.

One would think this needless to say, but it seems necessary: the IPCC's unequivocal climate liars would do all of science, the world, and the policymakers a huge service if the lies of "unequivocal," "accelerating," and "unprecedented" global warming were eliminated from the public discourse. These are propaganda terms that the objective empirical evidence robustly refutes.

If that were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to accurately label scientists as "unequivocal" liars.

Modern, historical and fabricated-fake temperature charts.

Latest Research Disproves IPCC's Climategate Hockey-Stick: Antarctica Was Warmer During Medieval Period

Read here. The Climategate scandal was the door opening that revealed a cadre of IPCC "scientists" conspiring to push their rendition of crop circle pseudoscience. A key component of that effort was the infamous "hockey-stick" that purported to show modern era temperatures to be unprecedented, and the climates of the Medieval Warming (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) to be minor blips of no significance. The IPCC's crop circle scientists also claimed that the MWP and LIA only existed in the small regional area of the north Atlantic/European geography. Subsequent studies and a mountain of empirical evidence refutes the IPCC pseudoscience.

A new peer-reviewed paper by Bertler et al., using the latest deuterium and temperature-isotope science, constructed temperatures going back 1,100 years. The new temperature dataset (see adjacent chart - click to enlarge) clearly shows the LIA in Antarctica to be massively cooler than modern temperatures; the dataset establishes that the modern warming is not "unprecedented" as the MWP is slightly warmer.

"The researchers obtained new deuterium (δD) data from the Ross Sea region of Antarctica that they acquired via analysis of the top fifty meters of a 180-meter-long ice core that had been extracted from the ice divide of Victoria Lower Glacier...work revealed three climatically-distinct time periods: the last 150 years of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, AD 1140 to 1287), the Little Ice Age (LIA, AD 1288 to 1807), and the Modern Era (ME, AD 1808 to 2000)...authors report that "the final 150 yrs of the MWP were ... about 0.35 °C warmer than the ME,"" [N.A.N. Bertler, P.A. Mayewski, L. Carter 2011: Earth and Planetary Science Letters]

Additional climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.

The Tragic Befuddlement of IPCC Climate Alarmist Scientists: The Loss of 'Global Warming' Is Inexplicable

Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.

The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.

More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)

Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected."
JC question for Kevin Trenberth:  "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."

Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”.
JC message to Susan Solomon:  "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."

John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”
JC comment:  "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."

Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.”
JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."

Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.”
JC summary:  "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming.   A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling.  The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years.  Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."

As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.

IPCC Climate Physicist Verifies Climate Model Predictions Are Worthless For Periods Longer Than A Decade

Read here. It is common knowledge that weather computer models are unreliable for accurate predictions that extend past a three day future. Climate models, which are closely related to weather models, suffer from the same non-reliable prediction issues as the longer than three day weather simulations.

In a state-of-the-art analysis, peer reviewed research by an IPCC climate expert has now confirmed that climate models are essentially worthless for predictions that stretch out a decade, which makes the models even worse than worthless for century-scale predictions.

Climate experts Latif and Keenlyside established the following:

1. "...examples of these internal [climate] variations are "the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Variability (PDV), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV)," all of which "project on global or hemispheric surface air temperature (SAT)...special attention to the variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which they suggest is likely the origin of a considerable part of the decadal variability within the Atlantic Sector"

2. "...list numerous problems that hamper decadal climate predictability, among which is the fact that "the models suffer from large biases." In the cases of annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) and SAT over land, for example, they state that "typical errors can amount up to 10°C in certain regions,"..."

3. "...they add that several models also "fail to simulate a realistic El Niño/Southern Oscillation."..."

4. "...they indicate that "several assumptions have generally to be made about the process under consideration that cannot be rigorously justified, and this is a major source of uncertainty.""

5. "Another problem they discuss is the fact that "some components of the climate system are not well represented or not at all part of standard climate models," one example being the models' neglect of the stratosphere. This omission is quite serious, since Latif and Keenlyside say that "recent studies indicate that the mid-latitudinal response to both tropical and extra-tropical SST anomalies over the North Atlantic Sector may critically depend on stratospheric feedbacks,"..."

6. "An additional common model shortcoming, even in stand-alone integrations with models forced by observed SSTs, is that model simulations of rainfall in the Sahel "fail to reproduce the correct magnitude of the decadal precipitation anomalies.""

7. "Still another failure is the fact, as shown by Stroeve et al. (2007), that "virtually all climate models considerably underestimate the observed Arctic sea ice decline during the recent decades in the so-called 20th century integrations with prescribed (known natural and anthropogenic) observed forcing.""

8. "And added to these problems is the fact that "atmospheric chemistry and aerosol processes are still not well incorporated into current climate models.""

9. "...that "they [models] are incomplete and do not incorporate potentially important physics,""

10. "...that "the poor observational database does not allow a distinction between 'realistic' and 'unrealistic' simulations,"..."

11. "...state that "a sufficient understanding of the mechanisms of decadal-to-multidecadal variability is lacking," that "state-of-the-art climate models suffer from large biases,"..."

12. "...Therefore, they conclude that "it cannot be assumed that current climate models are well suited to realize the full decadal predictability potential,"..."

[Mojib Latif, Noel S. Keenlyside 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]

So, in summary, climate experts from the IPCC are conclusively stating that the IPCC and its climate experts have been wrong with their future climate predictions (scenarios) because the climate models are not "well suited" for doing so. This abysmal, comprehensive climate model failure thus applies to all past IPCC report predictions and will still be the case for future IPCC reports (AR5 and others).

Did we mention climate model predictions are worthless yet?

Previous climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

Rigging The Scientific Process The BEST Way: A New Tactic To Corrupt The IPCC

Read here. Well, it would seem Richard Muller and his Berkeley team take the weekly chutzpah honor with their grandiose PR media blitz and speculative claim for their non-peer reviewed literature.

The obvious arrogant and egotistical approach to climate science by Muller et al. is really not needed, nor recommended, for helping the IPCC to climb out of its self-inflicted pit of scientific corruption. Indeed, the Muller-BEST technique of forcing their "science" on the IPCC prior to a proper vetting and the peer reviewed process just adds a new stink to the existing odor of corruption.

Despite the "BEST" science only confirming what everyone accepted (that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age), their grandiose public relations machinations belie the real objective: to rig/manipulate the IPCC report process via public pressure towards acceptance of the Muller et al. findings in the next IPCC report.

It's as simple and as crass as that. As they say, read the whole thing and make up your own mind of what's really going on.

The Anti-Science, Anti-Growth, Anti-Prosperity, Anti-Job, Anti-CO2 Green Alarmism Coalition Visually Portrayed

The actual quotes of those proposing massive reductions in CO2 emissions are most revealing, and pretty damning as to their true motivations.

Words alone do not suffice, though. Below are new visual depictions of the forced taxpayer/consumer funding of "green" lobby/activists - literally, billions funneled into anti-democratic organizations with the clear intention of clamping a yoke on the necks of humanity. No doubt about it, the pseudo-green alarmists making up the "green" machine are truly evil.

Click to enlarge images. Source of image one; image two; image three.

IPCC Models Spectacularly Fail Reality Test - Key Predicted Components 'Exaggerated' & 'Overestimated'

Read here. In the ever growing portfolio of studies finding climate model failure, new research determines that actual upper troposphere temperatures are significantly below the predicted temps of the IPCC climate models. This finding represents the complete collapse of climate model validity.

All of the UN-IPCC's catastrophic scenarios depend on there being a high climate sensitivity, which will manifest itself as significant upper atmosphere warming in the tropical latitudes, thus leading to "accelerating" surface temperatures.

Unfortunately for the climate model alarmists, their entire simulated climate world, in actuality, is a climate sensitivity farce. Satellite empirical evidence from Fu et al "show little trend" over the 1979-2010 period. As a result, tropical surface temperatures are robustly below climate model predictions.

"As they describe it, Fu et al. examined trends in the temperature difference (ΔT) between the tropical upper- and lower-middle-troposphere based on satellite microwave sounding unit (MSU) data, as interpreted by both the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and the Remote Sensing System (RSS) teams, comparing both sets of results with AR4 GCM ΔT simulations for the period 1979-2010...report that the RSS and UAH ΔT time series "agree well with each other," and they indicate that they show little trend over the period of record. On the other hand, they state that there is "a steady positive trend" in the model-simulated ΔT results, concluding that the significantly smaller ΔT trends from both the RSS and UAH teams "indicate possible common errors among AR4 GCMs." In addition, they note that the tropical surface temperature trend of the multi-model ensemble mean is more than 60% larger than that derived from observations, "indicating that AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010... "it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between [the] tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades,"" [Qiang Fu, Syukuro Manabe, Celeste M. Johanson 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Per Wikileaks Documents, The UN's Climate Change Programs Are Total Failure - Looks Like Fraud

Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.

"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."

Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.

The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.

The IPCC Corrupts & Compromises Climate Science Journals - A Literal Disaster For Science

Read here. The public disbelief in scientists and their science journals continues to grow. This is especially true in the realm of "climate science" and "global warming."

In the case of climate science, the UN's political agenda dictated a need to assure the appropriate peer reviewed journals lost their scientific objectivity. What better way to do it then making the "science" journals an integral part of the IPCC "science" process?

"But what happens when the people who are in charge of these journals are the same ones who write IPCC reports?...Today’s exhibit is the Journal of Climate. It’s published by the American Meteorological Society – which certainly sounds reputable. But let’s take a look at its IPCC connections...It’s chief editor, Anthony J. Broccoli, was a contributing author and expert reviewer for the IPCC’s 2007 report...Nathan Gillett, one of its editors, served in four separate AR4 capacities – as a lead author, an expert reviewer for both Working Group 1 and Working Group 2, and as an expert reviewer of the Synthesis Report. He is now a lead author for the upcoming IPCC report...Marika Holland, another editor at the Journal of Climate, contributed to two chapters of the 2007 climate bible...Editor Andrew Pitman was an IPCC lead author, a contributing author, and an expert reviewer for the 2007 edition. Moreover, he’s involved in the upcoming report as a review editor...As editor James Renwick’s bio page makes clear, he was a contributing author to the 2001 IPCC report, a lead author for the 2007 report, and is currently a lead author for AR5...editor Brian Soden was a 2007 contributing author and an expert reviewer who is currently serving as an AR5 lead author...Editor Shang-Ping Xie is currently an AR5 lead author, and editor Michael Alexander was a 2007 IPCC expert reviewer."

And that's just one of the supposed "impartial" and "objective" peer reviewed journals. As they say..."Houston, we have a problem." It's science journalism at its worst.

IPCC Expert Reviewer To Young Researchers: Beware Climate Models, They Make You Look Stooopid & Lazy

Read here. Eduardo Zorita, a star climate researcher with IPCC credentials, has some great advice for young scientists looking at a career in climate science. Our title paraphrases his response, which was actually:

"Climate modelling is a quite broad and complex area. In my opinion, there are two dangers that a student should avoid. One is to get stuck in a daily routine of programming and launching simulations, and slowly forgetting that simulations are performed to answer some previous question. This question should be the main driver of the work, the model is just a tool. Climate models are nowadays so complex and require so much technical attention that it is easy to get off the track. The second danger is to fall in love with your model and lose sight of the real observations out there. Models are in this sense dangerous and climate models even more so."

Previous climate-model postings.

UN Recommends Attaching Big Kites To Ships To Pull Them Thru Water - Hmmm, Oars & Slaves Next?

Read here. Thank god there is the UN. How would the world ever survive, if say, the UN just disappeared forever? (Okay, I admit, utopia immediately comes to mind.)

Yep, you read that title correctly - the UN is suggesting the big kites for the big ships.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has laid out a framework to get the world's shipping to reduce CO2 emissions significantly. And bless their puny little brains, they are trying to suggest solutions for a very difficult problem.

Besides the kites idea, the IMO recommends going sloooower, which certainly puts a new speed bump in place for the entire concept of just-in-time delivery. Based on these type of recommendations, it would be fair to surmise that the UN's IMO is not really into new technology, nor enhancing global trade, no?

Marc Morano Sums Up The IPCC AGW-Science Concisely: 'Sub-Prime' Global Warming Science

Climate Depot's Marc Morano does an interview on TV news. He nails the the massively failed IPCC/Gore approach to science as 'sub-prime' and then identifies Al's next pseudo-science PR effort to misleading the public - that bad weather is caused by CO2.

Galactic-sized problem with the new Gorian approach, though. Bad weather incidents are well documented hundreds of years before the modern era rise of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.

The Details of Greenpeace & IPCC Collaboration Keeps Leaking Out - Pachauri Still Misleading Public

Read here.  The IPCC objectives are not climate science but instead political objectives of its green creators and fanatics. The UN's IPCC is infected by the Big Green machine's activist personnel and alumni. To make it so, Pachauri keeps defending the fringe green elements (and their non-scientific techniques) involved in the IPCC's climate reporting.

"Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case...He has boasted that his organization is utterly transparent – but an InterAcademy Council committee that took a close look at the IPCC last year concluded otherwise – before recommending that Pachauri should step down...Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas...In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist..."

Chinese Scientists Document That Urban Heat Island Impact Can Explain As Much As 44% of Recent Warming

Read here. It's become common knowledge that the UN's IPCC objective is not one of impartial, scientific analysis of climate change but instead one biased towards political governance and economic control goals. As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC. The urban heat island (UHI) effect on temperature records is one such impact that the IPCC keeps trying to minimize but the actual science keeps refuting the IPCC's agenda-driven science.

Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. This study represents additional empirical evidence that significant global warming is not exclusively due to the IPCC's politically correct causation, CO2 emissions.

"Monthly mean surface air temperature data from 463 meteorological stations, including those from the 1981–2007 ordinary and national basic reference surface stations in east China and from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, are used to investigate the effect of rapid urbanization on temperature change...The trends of urban heat island (UHI) effects...are generally consistent and indicate that rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade. [Xuchao Yang, Yiling Hou, Baode Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]

Additional urban heat island and peer-reviewed postings.

UN's IPCC Assessment On Glacier Movement Found To Be Robustly Incorrect - Climate Models Are Wrong Too

Read here. The UN's IPCC is a political agency with the sole objective of producing anti-CO2, pseudo-science reports regarding global warming and  climate change. It achieves this not by conducting its own experiments or research, but by collecting 3rd party alarmist research and advocacy papers from Climategate-type of scientists and green activist groups that favor the anti-CO2 agenda report.

This approach to a political "science" report has often ended up producing latrine-level science, such as the discredited 'hockey-stick' temperature chart and now infamous Himalayagate affair.

The IPCC's reporting on glaciers, in general, has been robustly wrong and a major factor has been an assessment based on a simple, yet spectacularly wrong, glacier hypothesis. Simply stated, the IPCC assumed that warmer temperatures would cause greater glacier ice melt, thus causing a positive self-lubrication feedback that results in a consistent, accelerated glacier movement towards open water. Sounds good except for the reality part - it doesn't work that way.

Previous glacier research had determined that Greenland's glacier flow exhibited a long-term decrease over 17 years of warming and increased melting. Sundal et al., using satellite technology, analyzed glacier movement to determine why the IPCC glacier hypothesis did not agree with the obviously contradictory empirical evidence.

"The six scientists determined that "although peak rates of ice speed-up are positively correlated with the degree of melting, mean summer flow rates are not, because glacier slow-down occurs, on average, when a critical run-off threshold of about 1.4 centimeters a day is exceeded." Thus, and "in contrast to the first half of summer, when flow is similar in all years," they found that "speed-up during the latter half is 62% (± 16%) less in warmer years," so that "in warmer years, the period of fast ice flow is three times shorter and, overall, summer ice flow is slower...conclude that "simulations of the Greenland ice-sheet flow under climate warming scenarios should account for the dynamic evolution of subglacial drainage," because "a simple model of basal lubrication alone misses key aspects of the ice sheet's response to climate warming,"" [Aud Venke Sundal, Andrew Shepherd, Peter Nienow, Edward Hanna, Steven Palmer, Philippe Huybrechts 2011: Nature]

Additional ice sheet/glacier, failed-predictions and peer-reviewed postings.

Laurens Bouwer, IPCC Lead Author Admits There Has Been No Significant Impact From Climate Change

Read here (scroll down to bottom of linked article) and here. The money quote from the IPCC lead author:

“Lacking significant impact from anthropogenic warming so far, the best way to assess the potential influence of climate change on disaster losses may be to analyze future projections rather than historical data.”

In a nutshell, Laurens Bouwer, speaking for the IPCC, concurs that the climate change empirical evidence (ie, severe weather events, species extinction, etc.) of CO2-induced global warming is not convincing, nor material, nor relevant. Since there is no evidence of the IPCC C-AGW hypothesis and predictions being valid, he suggests instead using the failed predictions as basis for future prognostications about climate impact.

Simply amazing idiocy from the IPCC's scientific elite, eh? But wait......

So who is the lead author who dismisses facts and evidence to be replaced by the magical, dysfunctional IPCC prediction machine? Well...er...he's not a credentialed scientist nor a known climate expert. Instead, he appears to be another career apparatchik picked for his adherence to the non-scientific agenda - indeed, another IPCC controlled marionette.

"Laurens Bouwer is employed by VU University Amsterdam. According to that institution’s website, he too remains PhD-free. Yet a bio dated last month tells us he was a lead author for the the 2001 assessment report, as well as a contributor to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Extremes.”...the only way Bouwer could have served as a lead author for the 2001 report is if he had been nominated for that position some time in the late 1990s. But he didn’t even have a Master’s degree then...Let us repeat this: at the time Bouwer joined the ranks of the IPCC’s best and brightest he had yet to complete his Masters."

Examples of failed predictions of IPCC and warming alarmists. List of extreme weather events prior to IPCC's predicted modern era of "climate change" extremes.

Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don't Work

Read here. The admission by a new paper published in the PNAS journal that there has been no global warming since 1998 is stunning in its implications. First, it unabashedly means that UN and national government climate scientists and bureaucrats have simply been lying about the "accelerating," "unequivocal," and "unprecedented" warming that supposedly took place over the last decade plus.

Second, it means the multi-billion dollar climate models that have long predicted global warming (due to the continuous growth of human CO2 emissions) are essentially worthless. Since 1998, the models have been an admitted disastrous failure - they don't work as promised or as advertised by the IPCC.

To further emphasize this latter point, a new peer reviewed study by Fu et al. determines that the climate models have consistently exaggerated the predicted warming of the tropical upper atmosphere. The failure of this prediction is a body blow to the "consensus" science.

If the atmosphere does not actually warm as predicted, the feared IPCC global warming tipping point can't happen.

Realistically and objectively, the evidence grows that the climate model predictions are based on the robustly dysfunctional, teetering CO2-based AGW hypothesis.

"“IPCC AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) GCMs (General Circulation Models) predict a tropical tropospheric warming that increases with height...“One of the striking features in GCM-predicted climate change due to the increase of greenhouse gases is the much enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Here we examine this feature by using satellite MSU/AMSU...“IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010...While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep-layer troposphere warms faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations.”" [Q. Fu, Syukuro Manabe, and C M Johanson 2011: Geophysical Research Letters-(in press)]

Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

NOAA Temperature Data Rebuts IPCC's Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming

The UN's political and propaganda climate agency, commonly known as the IPCC, has made an ongoing, multi-decadal effort to convince both policymakers and the public that global warming was relentless, unprecedented and accelerating. The well publicized IPCC climate predictions even went as far as to claim winters would be wamer with an associated disappearance of snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

Unfortunately for the IPCC though, and its climate model predictions, and its "consensus" science, natural climate forces made a mockery of the exhibited arrogance and hubris embodied within the United Nations climate propaganda agency.

As fate would have it, large expanses of global geography have experienced colder and snowier conditions during many of the last ten years, totally contradicting the "settled" science of politicians and bureaucrats. Case in point is the vast area of the U.S. and its various regional areas. (click on image to enlarge)

The U.S. has been cooling overall for the past 15 years, and as the chart above depicts, its winters, as reported by the NOAA climate services, have contributed to that trend. This happened despite the IPCC claim that increased CO2 emissions results in global warming, not hemispheric cooling. And let there be no doubt, annual CO2 emissions continue to be large and growing.

h/t: Steve Goddard

Additional failed-prediction postings. Modern temperature charts.

Since 1990, IPCC's Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong - Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling

Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.

Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"

The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.

According to Pachauri [IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."

As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.

Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.

Additional failed-prediction postings.

GOP's Romney & Huntsman Condone A UN Affiliated Green-Fascist's Threats Directed At Skeptics

Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.

“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."

So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.

Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?

These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.

And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.

 

A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions

Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the 2007 IPCC "consensus" climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)

The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.

As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the  the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.

As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.

Additional failed-prediction postings. Other modern temperature, climate model and CO2-greenhouse gas charts/graphs.

'Big Green' Destroys IPCC's Credibility - New Revelations Confirm The Lefts/Liberals Anti-Science Bias

Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.

As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.

The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.

Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!

"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."

"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."

Newest Peer-Reviewed Study: Experts Find That IPCC Climate Models Are Basically Worthless

Read here. The IPCC and all the alarmist climate scientists/pundits base their catastrophic global warming predictions on the output of a handful of climate models. They present the models' predictions and forecasts as evidence to policymakers that action must be immediately taken to curb human CO2 emissions, or else "the world will end as we know it."

While presenting climate models' forecasts as gospel, there is ample real world evidence that the models are terrible at climate predictions, be they global temperature predictions or other climate condition forecasts (eg., sea-level, snow-pack predictions).

A new study by experts confirms what the majority of scientists are now reluctantly admitting: the IPCC climate models are worthless when used for future climate prognostications.

"“Forecasting researchers, with few exceptions, have ignored the current major forecasting controversy: global warming and the role of climate modelling in resolving this challenging topic. In this paper, we take a forecaster’s perspective in reviewing established principles for validating the atmospheric-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) used in most climate forecasting, and in particular by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...The omissions in Chapter 10 of the IPCC report and most of the subsequent research lie in the lack of evidence that the models actually produce good forecasts. There is ample testimony in the forecasting literature of the difficulties of forecasting beyond the range of data on which a model is constructed...“…the structural weaknesses in the GCM identified here suggest that a reliance on the policy implications from the general circulation models, and in particular the primary emphasis on controlling global CO2 emissions, is misguided...“The scientific community of global climate modellers has surely taken unnecessary risks in raising the stakes so high when depending on forecasts and models that have many weaknesses.”" [Robert Fildes, Nikolaos Kourentzesa 2011: International Journal of Forecasting]

Additional climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

135 Years of Climate Change In India: No Change In Rainfall, Despite IPCC Prediction of A Severe Decrease

Read here. Over the historical past and throughout the 20th century, India suffered from many devastating droughts and famines. Recognizing the importance of rainfall to the sub-continent, the IPCC predicted that global warming will cause a decreasing trend in rainfall for India, potentially leading to even more dangerous droughts and famines. The latest peer-reviewed research though finds the IPCC prediction to be all wet.

Kumar et al. reviewed precipitation records over the period from 1871 to 2005. In summary, there was no significant trend for rainfall across India during this period of "unprecedented" warming that the IPCC contends was wreaking rainfall havoc on India and the world.

"In the words of the three researchers, "half of the sub-divisions showed an increasing trend in annual rainfall, but for only three was this trend statistically significant." Similarly, they state that "only one sub-division indicated a significant decreasing trend out of the 15 sub-divisions showing decreasing trend in annual rainfall." In terms of monthly rainfall during the monsoon months of June to September, they found that "during June and July, the number of sub-divisions showing increasing rainfall is almost equal to those showing decreasing rainfall," and in August they say that "the number of sub-divisions showing an increasing trend exceeds those showing a decreasing trend, whereas in September, the situation is the opposite." In addition, they report that "the majority of sub-divisions showed very little change in monthly rainfall in most of the months," while "for the whole of India, no significant trend was detected for annual, seasonal, or monthly rainfall."..."In every way that the data could be analyzed, Kumar et al. could find no hint of the decrease in rainfall that the IPCC had suggested would occur over India..." [Vijay Kumara; Sharad K. Jainb; Yatveer Singha 2010: Hydrological Sciences Journal]

Additional drought-flood, failed predictions and peer-reviewed postings.

Another Wrong IPCC Prediction: Major Atlantic Ocean Current Will Likely Slow Due To Greenland Ice Melting

Read here. The IPCC predicted, using its climate models, that it was "likely" that the melting ice of Greenland, due to CO2-caused global warming, of course, will cause cold, fresh water to flow into the Atlantic Ocean disrupting major currents, including slowing down the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). Hollywood climate scientists even made a movie about this subject, backing up the IPCC Climategate scientists' predictions. As usual though, actual science and empirical evidence makes a shambles of the joint IPCC/Hollywood predictions.

A new study by Zhang et al. analyzes the AMOC using the North Brazil Current as a proxy and confirms that the AMOC is not slowing down due to any modern Greenland ice melt. Their research did indicate though that the AMOC has a cyclical behavior on a decadal scale, which puts its behavior in the realm of natural oscillations, not CO2-based, like the fictional IPCC/Hollywood "science" that coastal elites believe and solely rely on.

"There has been debate as to whether the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) has begun slowing down due to global warming, but research on AMOC variability based on instrumental records is limited. One possible indicator of change in the AMOC is the North Brazil Current (NBC)...The researchers therefore suggest that observed NBC variability is a useful indicator of AMOC variations. They confirm this using a climate model simulation. Furthermore, the authors note that although some studies have suggested that the AMOC is slowing down due to global warming, the NBC shows multidecadal variability but no significant slowing trend over the past 50 years." [Dongxiao Zhang, Rym Msadek, Michael J. McPhaden, Tom Delworth 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans]

Additional failed-prediction, oscillation-current and peer-reviewed postings.

Researchers Pinpoint Why IPCC Climate Models Fail At Winter Precipitation Predictions: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Read here. Climate models used by the IPCC and the national climate agencies are notoriously bad at making predictions of precipitation, including snow during the Northern Hemisphere winter months. The primary resaon for this prediction failure is the lack of input from natural ocean and atmospheric cycles. The models' perfect ignorance of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a case in point.

Shen et al. conducted research on snow coverage across the Tibetan Plateau over the last 200 years. They confirmed that snow variation was closely associated with the AMO, which climate models totally ignore.

"A paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds a strong influence of shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on changes in snow cover of the Tibetan Plateau over the past 200 years. Major shifts occurred in the 1840s, 1880s, 1920s, and 1960s...Ocean oscillations such as the AMO are not incorporated in climate models, but nonetheless have large effects upon climate change as demonstrated by this paper and others...also finds not surprisingly that cold phases are associated with more snow and warm phases with less snow...A plausible mechanism linking the North Atlantic climate to Asian monsoon is presented." [Caiming Shen, Wei-Chyung Wang, Gang Zeng 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Additional oscillation-cycle, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Latest Expert Study: Climate Models Unable To Correctly Simulate Tropical Ocean Warming

Read here. The unbelievably expensive, wasteful climate model fiasco continues to be documented as researchers find more model failures. The latest is the finding that models are unable to correctly simulate tropical ocean temperatures. This is a major failure.

In order for climate models to even have a tiny chance at accurately predicting regional climate conditions, they need to be able to simulate actual tropical ocean warming patterns. In this peer-reviewed study, scientists determined that the IPCC climate models are unable to do so.

"The authors note that there is increased interest in the ability of climate models to simulate and predict surface temperature and precipitation changes on sub-continental scales," and they state that these regional trend patterns "have been strongly influenced by the warming pattern of the tropical oceans," which suggests that correctly simulating the warming pattern of the tropical oceans is a prerequisite for correctly simulating sub-continental-scale warming patterns...determined that "the tropical oceanic warming pattern is poorly represented in the coupled simulations," and they say that their analysis "points to model error rather than unpredictable climate noise as a major cause of this discrepancy with respect to the observed trends." And because of this problem, they found that "the patterns of recent climate trends over North America, Greenland, Europe, and North Africa are generally not well captured by state-of-the-art coupled atmosphere-ocean models with prescribed observed radiative forcing changes."" [Sang-Ik Shin, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh 2011: Climate Dynamics]

Additional climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

Chinese Scientists Discover What IPCC Has Purposefully Avoided: Identify Solar As Primary Cause of Global Warming

Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have long had marching orders from their political masters to prove that human CO2 emissions are the principal cause of global warming. This politically correct agenda thus requires that IPCC scientists diminish or ignore other climate influencers, including solar.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, there still exist thousands of scientists who conduct objective climate research to determine the real causes of climate change, in spite of political agendas.

Recently, Chinese scientists reconstructed past temperatures and determined that swings in temperature averages are a result of multiple, natural oscillations that are driven by solar radiation variability. Their research does not implicate CO2 as a major contributing factor.

"In an attempt to gain that understanding, Qian and Lu began with the reconstructed global-mean temperature anomaly history of Mann et al. (2008), combined with HadCRUT3 data for 1000-2008, relative to 1961-1990...they used a wavelet transform procedure to identify four oscillations in the millennial temperature time series...Next, they similarly examined a reconstructed 400-year solar radiation series based on 10Be data...determined that "the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability," and they report that the "relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations," noting that "between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years,"...As for the future, they predict that "global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s."" [WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu 2010: Chinese Science Bulletin]

Additional solar-cosmic and peer-reviewed postings.

The UN's Incredible IPCC Bogosity Machine: The Continuing Fiasco of Bogus "Peer-Reviewed" Science Claims

Read here and here. Recently, everybody got a real hoot from the ludicrous, outrageous UN lie that 50 million climate refugees would be roaming the globe in 2010. It was so totally embarrassing to be caught promulgating that whopper that the UN even tried to make it quietly disappear, but that didn't go as planned due to its ineptness.

And, of course, there were the recent events of IPCC individuals being involved in the embarrassing Climategate, Amazongate, and Himalayagate events, which further endowed the UN and its agencies with a well deserved reputation of deceit, misconduct and misrepresentation. Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs of IPCC climate science never seems to end.

As blogger Donna Laframboise keeps finding, the grandiose claim that all the climate and economic research backing the IPCC reports is "peer-reviewed" is a shockingly, bald-faced, spectacular lie that only leftist/socialists/greenie bureaucrats would truly love and appreciate. In some sections of the IPCC report, Donna has found that listed peer-reviewed reports represent only 25% of all listed "research", in contrast to the official claims of 100%.

"“The science is absolutely first rate,” Pachauri declared: “The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.”...A year later, in June 2008, during a visit to New Zealand, Pachauri told a journalist: “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.”...A few weeks afterward, in San Francisco, he again told an audience that IPCC reports are “based on peer-reviewed literature.” On that occasion, he mocked the idea that his organization might “pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” IPCC reports rely, he insisted, “on very rigorous research which has stood the test of scrutiny through peer reviews.”"

"...the IPCC discusses emissions reduction studies. Tol points out that although the third paragraph cites three documents – Stern (2006), Anderson (2006) and Barker (2006a) – not one of them has been peer-reviewed. Indeed, of the seven studies mentioned in total on this page only one was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (All reference material for that chapter is listed here.)...Tol further notes that on another page, devoted to the rather important question of what effect reducing emissions might have on employment (in the US climate change policies are currently being sold to be public as job creation plans), a total of six “studies are cited to support the notion that emission reduction creates jobs. Only one of the six is peer-reviewed.”...If this seems rather sloppy, Tol says it gets worse."

One would think after all this evidence it would be needless to say this, but just to play it safe:

When it comes to honesty and objective science, it would greatly behoove the world's policymakers to avoid ever quoting the UN and its agencies, such as the IPCC, as the source of reliable information and expert analysis. The public is becoming ever more aware of the global source of misinformation, malfeasance and scientific incompetence in its midst.

New Research Out of Greenland Proves Stability of Ice Sheet Over The Last 2 Decades

Read here. The IPCC and its Climategate scientists have predicted CO2-caused global warming for decades, which would cause the Greenland area to warm, leading to a gigantic ice melt, thus flooding coastal regions around the globe. Commonsense, anecdotal evidence, and tidal gauge and satellite data makes for convincing case that the IPCC and fellow alarmists have hilariously exaggerated this predicted catastrophe. Now comes further Greenland research that confirms the IPCC "science" failure.

Daniault et al. studied the East Greenland Current (EGC) for indications that the "melting" ice cap was injecting huge amount of fresh water melt into the current. They discovered that over the last two decades there is no increase in the EGC trend, which essentially demolishes the exaggerated IPCC predicted "tipping point" outcome.

The proverbial canary of Greenland fails to emit a peep: (click to enlarge, image source)

"The East Greenland–Irminger Current (EGIC), which flows southwestward along the eastern coast of Greenland, is important because variability in the EGIC likely influences convection in the Labrador and Irminger Seas, and could affect the global meridional overturning circulation...They find that the EGIC transport was close to average from 1992 to 1996, decreased between 1997 and 2005, and has increased since 2006. Beyond this decadal variability, the researchers find no significant trend in the 1992-2009 EGIC transport time series, confirming that EGIC transport variability has not changed significantly over the past two decades." [N. Daniault, H. Mercier, P. Lherminier 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]

Additional ice sheet/glacier,  failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Into The Crapper Goes IPCC's CO2 "Consensus" Science: New Research Points To Ozone As Driving Climate Change

Read here and here. The latest research is pointing to another causation of modern climate change: the ozone hole. It appears that the ozone hole affects climate from the southern polar to equator regions, with a special impact on circulation patterns and precipitation levels.

The researchers, Kang et al., make a point that the clueless IPCC did not even mention the ozone hole as a potential climate change force in the 2007 policymaker summary. And recently, it was discovered that an ozone hole is developing in the Arctic polar region.

"“This could be a real game-changer,”...researchers at Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science report their findings that the ozone hole, which is located over the South Pole, has affected the entire circulation of the Southern Hemisphere all the way to the equator...“We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!”...This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too...“While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate." [Sarah Kang, Lorenzo M. Polvani, J. C. Fyfe, M. Sigmond 2011: Science]

From another climate scientist:

“This study does illustrate the important point that different mechanisms of global change are contributing to the climate impacts we’re seeing around the world,” observed Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, a leading UK climate modeller...“It’s very important to unpack them all rather than assuming that any impact we see is down simply to greenhouse gas-mediated warming.”

Additional non-CO2 climate change postings and peer-reviewed postings.

IPCC's Flood Predictions Found To Be Without Scientific Merit: Major Flooding Appears To Be Declining, Not Increasing

Read here. Bozo climate predictions appear to be the IPCC's raison d'être, which they definitely excel at. The latest bozo climate prediction found to be erroneous is that global warming, due to human CO2 emission increases, will cause more precipitation, thus causing more floods of greater frequency and intensity. Fortunately for the world, the IPCC is wrong again.

Bouziotas et al. determined with 50+ years of empirical evidence from 119 stations that the frequency and intensity of floods has not increased and may actually be slightly decreasing. (click on image to enlarge)

"Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."..."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." ["Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis."....."The chart on the left shows the percentage of the positive and negative slopes of the trend lines, for all years and for the period after 1970 respectively. Contrary to what is believed, the percentage of increasing trends is lower than that of decreasing trends, particularly in the most recent period." [Dimitris Bouziotas, Georgios Deskos, Nikos Mastrantonas, Dimosthenis Tsaknias, Grigorios Vangelidis, Simon-Michael Papalexiou, and Demetris Koutsoyiannis 2011: European Geosciences Union]

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

IPCC Predicted Warming Would Cause Greater Rainfall: Indian Scientists Determine Models Are Wrong

Read here. The count of failed IPCC climate model predictions being wrong is likely unprecedented in the annals of science. Indian researchers confirmed another climate model failure in regards to predicted precipitation trends across their entire country.

Analyzing data from the 1901 to 2000, the researchers found that whatever global warming has taken place it has not caused an increase in mean annual rainfall.

"In light of global warming projections made by models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors write that several scientists have suggested that "ocean temperature patterns in the tropics and subtropics will change in ways that will lead to noteworthy changes in rainfall patterns."...Based on precipitation data they obtained from 1384 rain-gauge stations maintained by the India Meteorological Department...The two researchers state that for all of India, as well as for each of its four sub-regions, there was substantial inter-decadal variability of annual rainfall that could be "attributed to the inter-decadal variability of eastern equatorial Pacific SST (Niño 3) or Indian Ocean Dipole Mode," but they say that "no significant trend is discernable during the last ten decades..." [Manish K. Joshi and A. C. Pandey 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]

Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

Another Science Publication Falsehood Exposed: "There is no way that realistic model simulations of extreme precipitation is possible"

Read here. There are purposefully perpetuated climate science myths and falsehoods spread by peer-reviewed publications with hopes of influencing policymakers and the taxpaying public. One perpetual myth, which is without any scientific empirical evidence supporting it, is the assertion that IPCC-like climate models are skillful or successful at regional predictions.

It is common knowledge that these global climate models are abject failures at global predictions for a multitude of reasons, and can't be made better by having them produce regional predictions instead, such as predicting rainfall levels/trends in specific regions.

As one very prominent climate scientist, Roger Pielke Sr., states:

"There is a new article which perpetuates this myth that multi-decadal global model predictions are skillful. This, unfortunately is just one example of many who are making unsubstantiated scientific claims, yet, whose research is being accepted in peer reviewed journals and being funded by the National Science Foundation and other agencies...It is clear that considerable research funding is being provided to support what is not following the scientific method...The acceptance of hypotheses as facts in the publication process including this Ren et al 2011 paper, is one main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it."

Additional climate-model postings.

Chinese Researchers Undermine IPCC "Consensus" Science: Old Forests Proven To Be Large CO2 Consumers

Read here. Consensus science claimed that old forests no longer significantly consumed and stored (sequestered) CO2 from the atmosphere. This scientific claim allowed timber/logging companies to convince government officials in numerous countries that by logging old forests, and then replanting with young, fast growing trees, the world would be better off as growth of atmospheric CO2 would be reduced from newer tree consumption. In essence, "consensus" science put mature, forested areas at risk from chain saws in the name of saving the planet from global warming.

A new study out of China overturns the consensus with evidence that old forests still suck prodigious amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere providing a vibrant carbon sink.

"It was once believed that significant carbon sequestration by forests only occurs when they are young and growing vigorously...Tan et al. suggest that it is not really so, reporting the fact that stands of trees with ages in excess of 200 years have been demonstrated by several research groups to act as carbon sinks in both coniferous and mixed forests...buttress this claim by reporting the results of their own study of the subject, in which they employed an eddy covariance technique to examine the carbon balance of a more-than-300-year-old subtropical evergreen broadleaved forest...Clearly, the old notion of old trees contributing next to nothing to global carbon sequestration is manifestly invalid....."Although we observed a “surprisingly” large carbon sink [9 tons of carbon per hectare per year], it is still reasonable and comparable to other findings. The large-and-old trees did not stop sequestering carbon but, rather, sequestered a significant amount of it. Approximately 60% of the biomass increment is contributed by the growth of large trees""...[Zheng-Hong Tan, Yi-Ping Zhang, Douglas Schaefer, Gui-Rui Yu, Naishen Liang, Qing-Hai Song 2011: Atmospheric Environment]

Additional forest-tundra and peer-reviewed postings.

Another IPCC Prediction Failure: Infrared Radiation That Warms Earth Is Doing Opposite of Model Predictions

Read here. The essential foundation of the AGW hypothesis is that CO2 atmospheric increases block the escape of infrared radiation and increasingly bounces the infrared warming back to the Earth's surface to warm it. But when examining the empirical evidence, the infrared radiation bouncing back to Earth is mostly decreasing, not increasing. This is a likely the explanation for the disappearing global warming over the last 15 years.

Simply put, this is the exact opposite of what IPCC climate models and its faux climate scientists predicted.

Researchers Gero and Turner, using highly accurate technology, measured the decreases of infrared radiation reaching the surface and contend the decrease is due to increased cloudiness over the site - that's called a negative feedback, which Dr. Roy Spencer has presciently espoused.

"A study published online yesterday in The Journal of Climate, however, finds that contrary to the global warming theory, infrared 'back-radiation' from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared 'back-radiation' should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide"......"A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)...The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site." [P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner 2011: Journal of Climate]

Additional failed-prediction, peer-reviewed, and negative-feedback postings.

The UN's & IPCC RefugeeGate: 50 Million Climate Refugees By 2010 Is Classic, Outlandish Bogosity

Read here and here. The UN has become infamous for its scandals, corruption and outright fabricated, manipulative misinformation. The new reigning champion of UN bogus claims (at least those associated with pushing the global warming political agenda) has to be the 2005 blatant misinformation that by 2010 there would be 50 million "climate" refugees as a result of global warming.

"In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production."

The claim was such a preposterous bogosity that the UN is now trying to cover it up, and is ineptly failing to do so.

"Only one small problem there UN people, a little annoyance called Google cache, which has that page archived...Fear not dear readers, because as astoundingly smart as those UN people think they are, they forgot one very important yet tiny detail. The map links to a hi-resolution version of the “climate refugee map” and if you delete the page above and the map it contains, you also have to delete the hi-res image it links to...Ooops...I’m always happy to help the UN in times of “need”, sooooo I’ve recovered it and saved it here on WUWT, because that image link is likely to go down the memory hole on Monday."

If anyone really wonders why the UN and leftist/liberal elites are the bastion of climate-lies and science corruption regarding global warming and climate change, all it takes is reading their own words. Those words pretty much explain why climate science has become such an embarrassing disaster and the UN's IPCC a continuous joke on humanity.

h/t: The Global Warming Foundation

Major IPCC Climate Model Software Error Discovered By Researchers: Model Estimates Incorrect By Factor of 10x

Read here. Informed observers of the global warming, climate change debate are well aware that climate models are ludicrously atrocious at predictions and forecasting. 'C3' has documented many of the models' shortcomings, which obviously leads them to be worthless tools for policymakers to rely on.

A team of scientists, Eric D’Asaro et al., is publishing new research that revealed a huge software error in the climate models due to faulty assumptions. Primarily, the scientists found that the rate of energy release between ocean and atmosphere is 10 to 20 times higher than the standard, "consensus" IPCC assumption.

"A soon to be published paper in the journal Science documents a new study of the ocean surface boundary layer and, to the investigators' surprise, reveals that the rate of energy dissipation within the boundary layer to be enhanced by 10 to 20 times. This indicates that the atmosphere does not supply the energy for the boundary turbulence, the ocean does. This contradicts the prevailing scientific wisdom and shows once again that computer climate models are constructed using false assumptions."

""[T]hese results are consistent with recent theory on submesoscale processes and thus encourage incorporation of this theory into boundary layer models. Such physics is not accounted for in present-day climate models. Fronts associated with the Kuroshio, Gulf Stream, and Antarctic Circumpolar Current are key players in the ocean-atmosphere climate system. Inaccurate representation of the boundary layer and flow energetics in frontal regions could thus significantly affect the predictive skill of climate models."....."That is science speak for the models are wrong—they do not represent an accurate picture of how nature works." [Eric D’Asaro, Craig Lee, Luc Rainville, Ramsey Harcourt, and Leif Thomas 2011: Science]

Additional climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.