C3

 'C3'  Charts/Images/Vids  BlogRoll  Headlines Only 

Quotes  Bad Weather  Bad Predictions  Archvs./Catgrs.

  "C3, The Skeptic"               "IPCC Skeptic"              "Hide The Decline"

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Facts: Ocean Acidification Impact On Marine Species Overestimated, Study Finds

New research is documenting the actual carbon dioxide emission facts - the impact of ocean acidifcation on marine species has been exaggerated by alarmists

(image source)

Read here. Alarmists and anti-CO2 activists have loudly suggested that sea water that becomes more "acidified" will significantly harm marine species. Listening to the alarmists, one would surmise that mollusks such as clams and oysters would literally have their shells disappear from lower pH levels of oceans.

A new peer reviewed study by Parker et al. punctures this hot air balloon of alarmism with empirical evidence from actual experiments.

"The authors write that studies on the impact of ocean acidification on marine organisms that have been conducted to date "have only considered the impacts on 'adults' or 'larvae', ignoring the potential link between the two life-history stages and the possible carry-over effects that may be passed from adult to offspring,"...placed adults of wild-collected and selectively-bred populations of the Sydney rock oyster which they obtained at the beginning of reproductive conditioning - within seawater equilibrated with air of either 380 ppm CO2 (near-ambient) or 856 ppm CO2 (predicted for 2100 by the IPCC)...found that the larvae spawned from adults living in the "acidified" seawater were the same size as those spawned from adults living in near-ambient seawater; but they report that "larvae spawned form adults exposed to elevated CO2 were larger and developed faster."...concluding that the results of their work suggest that "marine organisms may have the capacity to acclimate or adapt to elevated CO2 over the next century."" [Laura M. Parker, Pauline M. Ross, Wayne A. O'Connor, Larissa Borysko, David A. Raftos, Hans-Otto Pörtner 2012: Global Change Biology]

Conclusion: Climate alarmists claims of the ocean acidification impact on marine species has not been factual. As researchers continue their research, the carbon dioxide emissions facts are being firmly established with empirical evidence while exposing the frequent fearmongering and exaggerations to scientific sunlight.

Previous species-endangerment, ocean-acidification and peer-reviewed postings.

Global Warming Science Facts: Climate Reality Intrudes, CO2 Has Little Impact On Long-Term Global Temperatures

Climate reality is confirmed by the actual global warming science facts - an analysis of HadCRUT global temperatures reveals that human CO2 has had little long-term impact

(click on images to enlarge)

Prior to discussing the above chart, it is now irrefutable that modern global warming has disappeared over the last 15 years. This has been fully recognized by all climate alarmist scientists as they very publicly debate the reasons as to why their AGW models and predictions failed.

The plot above (Fig. A) represents the long-term temperature changes, with the monthly levels of atmospheric CO2 for context. Specifically, the temperature plot is the 30-year change in temperatures for each month since 1880. For example, the leftmost datapoint is the temperature change from January 1850 to January 1880 (360 months). For each month after January 1880, the 30-year change is plotted.

As the 30-year change plot indicates, there have been extended periods of both warming and cooling, regardless of the CO2 (ppm) levels. There are two distinct warming periods: the first starting March 1908 and ending December 1939; the second starting January 1974 and ending February 1998. Note the flattening and then downturn of 30-year temperature change after 1998, some 15 years ago.

The red curve represents the 5-year average of the long-term changes, leaving no doubt that the prior warming increase was just as "unprecedented" as the claimed modern warming after the mid-1970's.

What's the true climate reality? As is clearly depicted, the 5-year average shows no impact from the continuous, monotonous rise of CO2 levels after 1950. And modern global warming is not accelerating, nor unequivocal - in fact, the modern warming is pretty much like past warming periods.

In more detail (click to enlarge) the two similar warming periods are plotted in the above two charts. Figure B on the left is for the period stretching a total of 382 months, with a long-term temperature linear trend of 2.4°C per century. Over this extended time period, CO2 levels only increased by 12 ppm from a very low point, reflecting relatively small human CO2 emissions prior to the modern consumer/industrial society.

Figure C represents the modern "unprecedented" and "catastrophic" long-term global warming as claimed by the climate alarmists. In reality, this modern warming lasted only 290 months and produced a global warming trend some 0.6 degrees less than the earlier period before collapsing after 1998. This "dangerous" warming occurred during a period of much higher atmospheric CO2 levels that quickly increased by 36 ppm (3 times more growth than early 20th century warming period).

Conclusions: The global warming science facts are unequivocal that long-term temperature change is not being significantly driven by higher human CO2 emissions, but ore likely a result of natural internal/external factors (ENSO, cosmic/solar, etc.). Climate reality is that the earlier 20th century warming (1908-1939) was more intense, producing a higher linear trend for long-term temperature change, and lasting considerably longer than the modern warming period (1974-1998). The stronger warming during the earlier 20th century took place despite CO2 levels being significantly below the alarmist's supposed "safe" CO2 levels of 350 ppm; and, the CO2 level increases during that period were one-third those of the modern warming.

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

Connect The Dots: Global Warming Statistics - New Analysis Confirms Widespread Fabrication of Fake Temperatures

Connect-The-Dots: Global warming statistics have been heavily manipulated to conform to alarmist scientists expectations - wholesale fabrication takes place because of the infamous "the models told me to do it" rationale

(click on images to enlarge, source)

Read here. The manipulation of temperature datasets, by climate alarmist scientists, to bolster the case for anthropogenic global warming has been discussed often at 'C3' and is even admitted to by those with close association to the Climategate fiascoes.

Phil Jones: ‘The instrumental records we examined seemed to be showing warmer temperatures than our computer models indicate should have occurred. We have therefore adjusted the instrumental record.’ (source here and here)

One of the simplest means to bolster the case for modern global warming, after 1950, is to "adjust" temperatures down (i.e. cool them) prior to 1950 - voila, modern global warming is enhanced by data manipulation alone. As can be seen in the above images for several individual EU climate stations, the blue lines represent the original temps and the red curves, pre-1950, the "cooling" adjustments for the period of 1920 to 1950 are obvious.

Conclusion: The over-the-top catastrophic global warming alarmist, anti-CO2 fanatic, Bill McKibben, asks us to connect the dots: global warming statistics are purposefully manipulated to establish faux modern global warming. Case closed.

Prior connect-the-dot postings. Additional fabricated-fake, modern, historical and climate-model charts.

Connect The Dots: Severe Weather Increase Prediction Due To CO2 Emissions Proven To Be Severely Bogus

Another connect-the-dots severe weather moment - real world empirical evidence from the leading tropical storm expert proves Nasa's James Hansen's prediction of increasing severe weather from human CO2 emissions to be bogus

(click image to enlarge)

The farcical 'connect-the-dots' campaign about "evil" CO2 is based on the non-scientific opinions and speculative predictions of both NASA's James Hansen and the UN's IPCC. Time and time again, their predictions, and those of other alarmists, are proven to be wrong.

The adjacent chart is another example of just how wrong the anti-CO2 alarmist crowd has been. Their prediction that increasing CO2 emissions would cause an increase in severe weather, such as tropical storms, is galactically incorrect. As a result, their doomsday predictive capabilities have become an internet joke.

And it's not just tropical storms predictions that have been this bad - it's every severe weather category that they've predicted CO2-induced catastrophic events for.

Conclusion: The connect-the-dots severe weather increase scenarios, due to higher CO2 atmospheric levels, just don't compute. Instead, the alarmist theory that CO2 causes bad weather events is kaput, buried under an empirical evidence avalanche. The IPCC, James Hansen and Bill McKibben could finally advance social justice if they would choose just to tell the truth, instead of their incessant, self-absorbed fearmongering.

Previous connect-the-dot postings.

Extreme Climate Change: Severe Hurricane Incidents At Record Low, Opposite of IPCC Predictions

The IPCC, and its grumpy band of Climategate alarmist scientists, predicted extreme climate change from human caused global warming - specifically, they predicted more frequent and more severe hurricane landfalls - they were wrong

(click on image to enlarge, image source)

Read here. The adjacent chart reveals the number of days between landfalls of a major hurricane striking the U.S. Since the last Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane strike, it's been 2,412 days and counting.

Since 1900, that is the longest span ever between major landfalls. And this significant climate science factoid is contrary to the IPCC "experts" whose consensus prediction categorically claimed that these large devastating storms would be more intense and more frequent, due to the increasing human CO2 emissions and global warming.

As is obvious to even the most fanatical believer in the CAGW religion, the scientific, empirical evidence readily documents that the CO2-alarmist "experts" have been spectacularly wrong.

With that said, the U.S. is long overdue for a major severe hurricane strike and it could well happen in 2012. Then again, it might not. Either way, the IPCC has proven to be incapable of any scientific predictive skill.

Previous extreme climate change and failed-predictions postings. A list of severe-weather events and other severe-weather charts.

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

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

(click on image to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

Tide Gauge Station Data Analysis: Global Sea Level Rise Not Expected To Exceed 7 Inches By 2100 AD

When determining the rate of global sea level rise, the best method is to conduct a tide gauge station data analysis - latest analysis reveals claims of "accelerating" sea level rise to be totally bogus

(click on images to enlarge, source of images)

Read here. Multiple "scientific" personalities seeking fame, fortune and influence  (such as the likes of Hansen, Cullen and Rahmstorf) have attempted to frighten the public and policymakers by stating that global warming was causing an acceleration of global sea level rise. Depending on the given personality, they predict that recent "acceleration" will cause sea levels to increase anywhere from 4 feet to 75 feet by 2100.

Empirically speaking, these "predictions" are utter nonsense with literally no facutal basis - and, btw, that's why exceptionally lazy and/or amazingly stupid NY Times and Washington Post "journalists" just love these hysterical claims.

Per the actual tide gauge data plots shown above though, it is more than obvious that the readers of the mainstream press have been significantly mislead by the catastrophic global warming hucksters. The chart on the left represents annual sea level change since 1900. The red line is the 10-year average.

One does not have to be a climate scientist to realize that this chart unequivocally reveals a pattern of constant annual variation in sea levels with absolutely zero acceleration.

The plot on the right, examines the 10-year average in even more more detail. Since 1900, the trend of the 10-yr average actually shows a deceleration, not an acceleration of sea level rise. Using the 10-yr average at the end of 2011 as the sea rise gospel, by year 2100, sea levels would only increase by some 7 inches - not exactly the millions of "climate refugees" type of catastrophe (another spectacularly wrong AGW huckster prediction) that the MSM has been caught parroting without due diligence.

Conclusion: The real world empricial evidence clearly exposes the global warming (AGW) catastrophic hucksterism that James Hansen et al. practice. Paul Homewood provided the above analysis of tide gauge station data analysis, but his work is not the only research proving that modern global sea level rise is modest and not accelerating in a catastrophic manner.

Additional sea-level and modern temperature charts.

James Hansen Gets Bitch Slapped, Robustly - His Catastrophic Global Warming Hoax In Final Death Throes

Factual, empirical evidence is always a bitch when it strikes at the heart of a belief system - and James Hansen deserves to be a bitch slapped for the catastrophic global warming hoax religion he's peddled, which is empirically meritless

(image source)

Read here. After 3 decades of predicting global warming disaster, one would think that NASA's James Hansen would finally give the 'doom and gloom' spiel a rest. But like a moth attracted to a flame (or a broken record?), Hansen couldn't resist doing the same old, same old in a recent opinion piece in the once proud NY Times.

Of course, the reason they call it an 'opinion' piece is that it doesn't have to include any empirical evidence that would embarrass the author, or none of those inconvenient facts challenging one's veracity. As a result, it's a perfect forum for Hansen since he can let fly with the surreal climate misinformation and his favored speculative disaster scenarios.

But when a "scientist" continually pushes bogus catastrophic fears on the public, they put themselves in harm's way for a well deserved major bitch-slapping.

And guess what? A global warming research expert, and a number-cruncher extraordinaire, decided to slap some sense into Hansen.

As Bob Tisdale makes perfectly clear in his response to Hansen's over-the-top catastrophic lameness, Hansen's catastrophic global warming disaster spiel has no empirical legs to speak of - it is the quintessential, proverbial emperor without clothes situation.

1. "Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models."

2. "...the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it."

3. "The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4 Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944)."

4. "The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same."

5. "In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years."

6. "...natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases."

7. "ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.”

8. "If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles."

9. "The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years..."

10. "In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans."

11. "...those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades."

12. "Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause."

As they say, read the whole bitch-slapped James Hansen memo; and, if you would like to support Bob's efforts as he dismantles the catastrophic global warming hoax, datapoint by datapoint, then buy his book  (and yes, 'C3' did just that - still haven't had time to read, though).

In addition to the above, 'C3' has done its own 'bitch slap' of Hansen here, here and here. Because the empirical evidence so overwhelmingly refutes Hansen's non-scientific disaster predictions, the bitch slapping is actually fairly easy to do.

For even more critiques of Hansen's climate science pathetic-ness, visit this page.

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

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

(image source)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Warming Science Facts: ENSO Will Not Become Permanent Feature of Warmer World, Experts Find

Global warming science facts from new research indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable

(image source)

(Ooops....don't confuse this wonderful looking ENSO to the left with the climate variety!)

Read here. Climate alarmist scientists speculated that global warming from human CO2 emissions would somehow cause the El Niño/La Niña climate cycle to become stuck in the El Niño mode. This would be the proverbial "tipping point" potentially causing the infamous runaway warming.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, and fortunately for the rest of us, Earth's systems primarily operates in a negative feedback fashion, preventing runaway situations. In addition, Davies et al. confirmed that during past warming periods, ENSO did not become stuck in the El Nino mode.

"The authors write that "variations in the frequency and amplitude of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) recorded in both instrumental and paleoclimate archives have led to speculation that global warming may cause fundamental changes...More specifically, they state that there is speculation that "warmer climates may promote a permanent El Niño state...In a study designed to further explore this possibility...analyzed the latest Cretaceous laminated Marca Shale of California, which permits..."a seasonal-scale reconstruction of water column flux events and, hence, interannual paleoclimate variability," during what is known to have been a "past 'greenhouse' climate state."...In light of their recent findings, Davies et al. say there is "little support for the existence of a 'permanent El Niño'...that there was robust ENSO variability in past 'greenhouse' episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state," which point they also emphasize in the final sentence of their abstract, where they say that their evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability "does not support the theory of a 'permanent El Niño,'" [Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, John A. Barron 2012: Geology]

Conclusion: Global warming science facts - the fear-mongering speculation that modern global warming would initiate a permanent El Niño 'tipping point' is without empirical merit. The ENSO climate pattern will retain its variability, unchanged by human CO2 emissions.

The Global Warming Debate Is Over - Polls Show Public Prefers Real World Facts, Not Hysterical Alarmism

The global warming debate is over, not - this debate will never end but the latest polls show that empirical evidence the skeptics utilize wins the debate, and the alarmists, with their never-ending hysterical catastrophic claims, lose the public debate (and the public)

(image source)

Catastrophic global warming, and its related climate change disasters, as purported by AGW alarmists, is not happening nor likely to happen in the near future.

Instead, non-catastrophic and non-rapid warming has taken place, and the plethora of empirical evidence supporting that is accelerating, unprecedented and unequivocal.

Adding to the malaise and misery of the advocates of Climategate doom and gloom science, the alarmists' climate models have proven to be consistently and robustly wrong.

The continuing preponderance of evidence that proves the alarmist chicken-little to be wrong has taken its toll, as the polls document. Indeed, the public at large is thumbing its collective noses at the hysterical claims proven to be without empirical merit.

Poll #1: "According to a paper published in the April 2012 edition of Nature Climate Change, the results of 74 different opinion surveys from 2002-2010 show US public concern about climate change reached a high point of 54% in 2007 and declined to about 44% in 2010."

Poll #2: "Swedish politicos ‘don’t buy climate change’...Six of ten local politicians in Sweden doubt whether human activity is to blame for global warming, a new study has found."

Poll #3: "Gallup asked Americans to say how much they worry about each of seven environmental problems. All show significantly less worry today than in 2000, when worry was at or near its high point for each item...Concern about global warming is lowest of the seven environmental issues tested..."

Poll #4: "'Fewer Americans today believe there is a scientific consensus than did so during the 2000s... after peaking in 2010, public skepticism about global warming softened slightly in 2011, and remains at lower level this year...Today's level of belief that global warming is similar to what Gallup found in 1997 & from 2001-2005' -- 42% say media exaggerate the seriousness, a higher amount than it was for much of the past decade'"

Poll #5: "According to the Lowy Institute's annual poll, Australians are losing their conviction on climate change. The last poll, published in June 2011 showed that just 41 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs" down from a whopping 68 per cent in 2006."

Conclusion: The alarmist claim that the global warming debate is over dies on the jagged shoals of empirical evidence and public opinion. The continuous stream of catastrophic climate change scenarios and gross misinformation has proven to be non-effective. Thus, expect more of the same.

Connect The Dots: Global Warming Predicted Hotspot Over Tropics Is Non-Existent Latest Data Confirm

'Connect the dots' global warming is a propaganda campaign being conducted by Bill McKibben per James Hansen's "climate science" - empirical measurements confirm Hansen's predicted tropical hotspot has not happened, it's a 'coldspot' instead

Climate alarmist James Hansen has long predicted the catastrophic tipping point of global temperatures from human CO2 emissions. His predictions include the seas will soon be boiling and a significant increase of extreme weather events, due to the excessive warming of the tropical atmosphere.

The excessive warming of the atmosphere over the Tropics is referred to as the AGW 'hotspot' and is the key signature of anthropogenic (by CO2 greenhouse gas) global warming.

Actual temperature measurements of the tropical atmosphere, as shown above, clearly indicate that the catastrophic 'hotspot' does not exist. Additionally, empirical evidence has the tropical atmosphere cooling over the last 15 years, at a -1.2 degree rate by year 2100, which is exact opposite predicted by IPCC climate models and the "experts," such as James Hansen.

Conclusion: Bill McKibben's infamous connect-the-dots global warming is a propaganda farce at best. The AGW signature tropical 'hotspot' does not factually exist; ergo, trillions of tons of human CO2 emissions has not caused a hotspot, boiling oceans or extreme weather events

Previous connect-the-dots postings. Additional modern, historical, fabricated-fake and climate-model charts.

Global Sea Level Rise: Melting Glaciers Have Tiny Impact On Sea Levels - Maybe 3.7 Inches By 2100

Alarmists have long predicted that Greenland's melting glaciers were causing an "accelerating" global sea level rise - new study confirms global warming alarmists wrong

(image source)

Read here. The predicted "accelerating" sea level rise has been a fearmongering staple of the IPCC's global warming alarmists and the mainstream press for decades. For pure hysteria sake, nothing beats the image of flooding populous coastal areas with the intent to frighten the public.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, the empirical evidence does not support their grossly speculative predictions from discredited climate models.

Firstly, the "accelerating" global sea level rise has not taken place as multiple research studies have documented.

Secondly, the alarmist creed that the melting of Greenland's glaciers would cause devastating ocean rises has been completely debunked by a new peer reviewed study on some 200+ glaciers on the world's largest island.

"...titled “21st Century Evolution of Greenland Outlet Glacier Velocities” [Moon et al.] examined the flow characteristics from nearly 200 glaciers across Greenland for the period 2000-2010 as analyzed using synthetic aperture radar data collected from various satellites...And what they found...was that the patterns of flow rate changes across Greenland were complex, both in space and time. Glaciers that were accelerating during a few years were found to be decelerating in others. Some accelerating glaciers were found in close proximity to other glaciers that were decelerating..."Finally, our observations have implications for recent work on sea level rise...Our wide sampling of actual 2000 to 2010 changes shows that glacier acceleration across the ice sheet remains far below these estimates, suggesting that sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (9.3 cm [3.7 inches] by 2100) at present...Our result is consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models."" [Twila Moon, Ian Joughin, Ben Smith, Ian Howat 2012: Science]

Conclusion: Accelerating global sea level rise from melting glaciers is not happening as predicted. The retreat of Greenland's glaciers is not a major contributor to sea level increases and there exists no empirical evidence that this will change by year 2100.

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

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

(click on images to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(image source)

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme Climate Change: EU Scientists Discover That Modern Severe Weather Events Happen Less

Global warming alarmists claim that extreme climate change is producing an increased frequency of severe weather events - new EU research proves that claim to be false

(image source)

Read here. Global warming alarmists and hysterical pundits/reporters are now apparently turning every nasty weather event into "proof" that current global warming is causing extreme climate change. Unfortunately for said alarmists, the empirical evidence completely undercuts claims that warming causes bad weather - essentially, the claims are all hype for several reasons.

• One, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years - the climate observation datasets are unequivocal about this.
• Two, from the recent past, it is well documented that very severe weather has been part of our climate over the last 100 years, well before the modern warming from the late 1970's to the late 1990's.
  
• Three, EU scientists (Sabatier et al.) have now documented that severe weather was worst in the historical past when temperatures were colder, not warmer.

"The authors write that "the Mediterranean region is one of the world's most vulnerable areas with respect to global warming,"...they thus consider it to be extremely important to determine what impact further temperature increases might have on the storminess of the region...produced a high-resolution record of paleostorm events along the French Mediterranean coast over the past 7000 years...from the sediment bed of Pierre Blanche Lagoon [near Montpellier, France]...nine French scientists, as they describe it, "recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300-6100, 5650-5400, 4400-4050, 3650-3200, 2800-2600, 1950-1400, and 400-50 cal yr BP," the latter of which intervals they associate with the Little Ice Age. And they go on to state, "in contrast," that their results show that "the Medieval Climate [global warming] Anomaly (1150-650 cal yr BP) was characterized by low storm activity." They further note that these changes in coastal hydrodynamics were in phase with those observed over the Eastern North Atlantic...and that the periods of increased storminess they identified seem to correspond to periods of Holocene cooling detected in the North Atlantic..." [Pierre Sabatier, Laurent Dezileau, Christophe Colin, Louis Briqueu, Frédéric Bouchette, Philippe Martinez, Giuseppe Siani, Olivier Raynal, Ulrich Von Grafenstein 2012: Quaternary Research]

Conclusion: The claimed extreme climate change and associated severe weather events over the last 15 years are not the result of "global warming." In addition, historical empirical evidence makes it clear that severe weather incidents increase as the climate cools, not when it warms. It is well established that the past cooler climates have had profound negative impacts on society whereas warmer climates have been more beneficent.

Previous climate-history, severe-weather and peer-reveiwed postings. Climate and temperature charts.

Connect The Dots: Climate Fraud By University Scholars Confirmed - Australian Researchers Claims Are Bogus

It's another connect-the-dots climate fraud moment as Australian National University climate researchers claims of being threatened were found to be bogus - they join University of East Anglia climate "scholars" in trend of Commonwealth science corruption

('Now showing at ANU' - click on image to enlarge - image source)

Read here. Academia has been at the proverbial center of climate science fraud across the world. But Commonwealth scholars appear to be especially susceptible to Piltdown-like science where known truth is ignored or subverted or falsified.

     "CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner...Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats...In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat"...Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU's vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails..."

Conclusion: Connect-the-dots climate fraud is rampant, to the point that "scholars" literally make up scenarios of boogiemen hiding underneath their beds, ready to eat their exposed toes at night. Essentially, this investigation provides proof that serious climate science scholarship is not even possible at ANU. (Perhaps, at some future point, an enterprising Aussie truth seeker will actually do a documentary film about ANU science corruption and its missrepresentation of climate science reality, no?)

Previous climate-bogosity-fraud-lies postings.

Connect The Dots: Climate Model Failure By NASA's Hansen - Huge Global Warming Prediction Errors Confirmed

It's another connect the dots moment - climate model failure is standard operating procedure for NASA's James Hansen as empirical evidence confirms his abysmal failure at global warming predictions

(click on images to enlarge)

This first chart establishes that the actual growth of CO2 emissions has not only continued as 'business as usual' since 1988, it in fact has exceeded the BAU growth rate handsomely during recent years.

This second chart plots the actual observed annual temperatures (NASA/GISS & HadCRUT) versus the climate model predictions of global warming made by James Hansen of NASA. Even to the casual observer, the abysmal failure of climate model predictions is staggering.

The green curve is the 'business as usual' NASA global warming prediction if 1988 levels of CO2 emission growth continued (Scenario 'A'). The green dots represent actual NASA annual global temperatures. The red dot is what Hansen predicted for 2011 temperatures - the gap between the green and red 2011 dots represent the huge prediction error.

The aqua curve represents Hansen's Scenario 'C' for global temperatures if the world had completely restricted CO2 emission growth by year 2000 - that never happened as CO2 growth went beyond BAU growth since 1988.

This third chart is a plot of the HadCRUT global temperatures over the last 15 years through March 2012. The HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC's 'gold standard.' Clearly, global temperatures over the last 180 months have not warmed as predicted by NASA's climate model (nor as predicted by any other "consensus" climate model). Huge global warming prediction errors will continue as long as computer models that are primarily based on levels of CO2 emissions are utilized.

Conclusion: Connect the dots climate model failure is not a 'roll of the dice' - it is a known, glaring global warming prediction bias that is significantly robust. Since this is a 'known known,' as a precautionary principle decision, James Hansen et al. should be retired from NASA's climate modeling research unit. Why?

When known failed climate scientist(s) begets known bad climate science that then leads to known bad economic and energy policies, then a humane precautionary principle is required to remove the failed scientist(s) prior to a tipping point of economic damage to society being reached. Or, in other words, fire the hysterical idiot - he's responsible for an incredible misallocation of science research resources since the 80's, and more recently, the incredibly crippling regulation/energy policies of the Obama administration.

Since Bill McKibben urges everyone to connect-the-dots, share the link to this 'C3' article with all your Facebook, Twitter, email and LinkedIn friends and contacts.

Additional temperature and climate charts. CO2 emissions and other energy data.

HadCRUT Scientists Connect The Dots: Global Warming Has Switched To Global Cooling Over Last 15 Years

The fanatical green, anti-CO2 activist Bill McKibben has urged everyone to 'connect the dots' - so be it - HadCRUT researchers did just that and confirmed that global warming morphed to global cooling despite huge increases in human CO2 emissions

(click on image to enlarge)

It's the last day of April 2012 and Phil Jones just released the March global temperature information. This latest update confirms that global temperatures are not "accelerating" nor "unequivocally" warming due to CO2 emissions.

As can be seen, the adjacent chart reflects the recent global cooling phenomenon.

Truth be told, the new global data clearly show that global temps are little influenced by CO2 levels. Plus, the over-hyped global warming is causing climate change alarmism has essentially no merit, per the data, thus falsifying Bill McKibben's entire career as an anti-CO2 crusader.

This newest empirical evidence affirms that highly paid (by the taxpayer) and arrogant climate scientists, and their billion dollar computer models, are often wrong, big time. Anti-science activists like McKibben would do well to show a little more humility about mother nature and also express at least an ounce of skepticism when listening to bureaucrat scientists with an agenda.

Conclusion: Connect the dots global warming does not exist and most certainly is not causing normal "climate change" weather events. If bad weather is happening more frequently, then activists might carefully examine the actual temeprature data and finally start asking if cooling is driving weather events.

Previous "accelerating" temperature and connect-the-dot postings. Additonal temperature and climate charts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous postings on corruption of science by corporate concerns.

Connect The Dots Climate Change: WWF Admits Being On Payroll of 'Big Wind' Firms - Money Talks

It's a connect the dots "climate change" moment: The ever self-righteous green organizations, such as the WWF, are being paid by 'Big Wind' companies for less than charitable reasons - obviously, what's best for the environment is no longer the primary mission for most greens

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

Read here. If true, it's another confirmation that big green is on the payroll of special interest groups that happen to spoil nature, harm the environment and cause climate change.

As more and more local communities do battle with the wind firms in order to save their environment, they are being back stabbed by the paragons of "green," all in the name of a greener green - the money in their coffers.

And it's not just the WWF.

"It has apparently also been revealed that Friends of the Earth Scotland are supported by Scottish Power Renewables, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland is also in the pay of big wind."

Connect the dots climate change has more importantly become the sleazeball issue of 'follow the money' - not the talked about issue of global warming or climate change (severe weather) events. Green groups, such as the WWF, are compromised by greed and not to be trusted to protect either nature or the environment

Connect The Dots: Global Warming Causes Boiling Oceans? CO2 Facts Vs. Myth

Connect the dots: Hollywood stars, such as Matt Damon, often spread misinformation about our modern climate and environment - a favorite is that boiling oceans will result from CO2-induced global warming

(click on images to enlarge - data source)

As these two charts reveal, the tropical waters around South Pacific islands range from 23°C to 28°C, which attracts a lot of tourists to these vacation paradises. And note that the atmospheric levels of CO2 had little, if any, impact on sea surface temperatures over the last 15+ years. (Red curve is 36-month mean of absolute monthly temperatures.)

There are those who claim that modern global warming is raising the sea water temperatures to dangerous levels, and soon there will be "boiling" oceans (103°C for sea water - gee, it only has to increase about 70 degrees). Where do Hollywood stars, like Matt Damon, get these wacky, non-scientific fears from?

Well.....just watch the climate scientist who spews this unsubstantiated craziness - he's is the highest earning "climate scientist" ever for a reason, and, btw, it's not because he's any good at climate predictions. Yet Hollywood celebrities involuntarily pee in their metro-panties when this climate-activist starts spreading the hysterical B.S.

The Hollywood stars are so gullible and lazy they never realize that the real facts totally contradict the crazy-man ravings, as the above charts clearly show.

Connect the dots: CO2-induced global warming is not raising sea water temperatures to dangerous levels; sea water temperatures are not "accelerating" nor "unprecedentd"; and the likelihood of boiling oceans ranges from about nil to zilch - except in the anti-science minds of the Hollywood airheads.

Additonal temperature and climate charts.

Electric Car Advantages? Obama's 'MPG' Fraud For EV's Is Ripping Off Consumers - Time To 'Crucify' EPA Bureaucrats?

The electric car advantages that the Obama administration touts turns out to be a giant scam perpetrated by the EPA bureaucrats - you know, the same bureaucrats 'crucifying' the fossil fuel energy industry in order to make energy costs skyrocket

(image source)

Read here. Numerous persons, from a wide variety of political persuasions, are making it clear they are not happy with the miles-per-gallon fraud that Obama's EPA is foisting on the public. Simply put, if an all electric vehicle has an EPA mileage rating of 99 mpg (MPGe), such as the Nissan Leaf, in reality it is only getting 36 mpg.

Gee, it's hard to believe that your government, which secretly sells assault weapons to drug cartels, is perpetuating a fraud on the American auto buyer, no?

The EPA fraud is the improper accounting of all the fossil fuels used to produce the electricity to power an all electric car. There is a correct accounting method readily available but the Obama EPA team chose an inferior method that allows electric car firms to claim huge fraudulent mileage statistics. For the details of how the EPA fraud is done, check out these articles: here, here and here.

And btw, don't expect any of Obama's consumer protection agencies to bring the EPA up on consumer fraud charges or criminally crucify the bureaucrat scum culprits.

Conclusion: The electric car advantages are mostly illusionary, which the EPA and Obama administration knows. Instead of being honest and transparent, the EPA decided to put lipstick on the EV pig, which is not flying well with consumer advocates, so-to-speak. To determine the true MPG of an EV, divide the EPA's MPGe published figure for any electric car and then divide by 3 - voila, that gives you close to the legit MPG.

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Hockey Stick Science: Does New Study On Quack Science Suggest Michael Mann Has Harmed Climate Science?

The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating

(click on image to enlarge - image source)

Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.

A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:

• "John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers.  They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
• "...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
• "QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."

For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.

Previous peer-reviewed postings.

Runaway Greenhouse Effect Facts: NASA's "Boiling Oceans" Prediction Not Supported By Data - Is Hansen Crazy?

Runaway greenhouse effect facts (or lack thereof) - while James Lovelock recently admits to hyping global warming alarmism, James Hansen still does crazy fearmongering - on video he predicts boiling oceans

(click on images to enlarge)

Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.

..........

At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions. 

Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.

The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.

Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.

Previous ocean-warming, tipping-point-hysteria and mainstream-media postings. 'C3' temperature-climate charts.

Note: Black dots in both charts above represent monthly CO2 levels. Sea surface temperatures plotted represent the longest continuous monthly measurements (without any monthly gaps) for both island locations.

Electric Car Advantages? How Does Paying $40,000 For A Tesla EV Replacement Battery Sound?

The Tesla electric car's batteries will cost $40,000 to replace when they run out of juice - how appealing are those electric car advantages at resale time?

(click on image to enlarge - source here)

Read here. The Tesla electric car is produced by a company run by a whiny corporate billionaire and taxpayer welfare mooch - to the tune of $450 million in U.S. taxpayer loans provided by Obama. What did Obama see in the company? Great question, and btw, don't expect the loan to be repaid, ever.

Tesla introduced their EV Roadster back in 2008 with much fanfare but in 2011 announced they would quit producing it - lackluster sales did the car in. And now the Roadster owners are finding out that if the car is parked too long the batteries go dead, for good.

The batteries represent about one-fifth the EV's sticker price, which comes out to approximately $40,000.00. Ouch!

"DON'T leave your electric car parked for too long - by the time you get back it could have turned into a $200,000 brick. Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "bricks" that could not be re-charged...Electric car maker Tesla is defending claims its cars become immobilised if the battery ever becomes completely discharged. This results in a battery replacement cost of about one-fifth the car's $206,000 sticker price...Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "BRICKS" that could not be re-charged."

Unfortunately, Tesla's electric car advanatges, known as batteries, are not the only expensive ones on the market. To replace battereis in any of the current EV's on the market is incredibly expensive, especially if they frequently catch fire. The good news? When it's time for resale or trade-in, the wealthy owners of these vehicles will receive just karma for leeching off the average taxpayer.

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Impact of Climate Change: Health Research Determines Global Warming Does Not Cause Illnesses

The IPCC climate impact models predicted increases in many illnesses that would lessen the quality of life - new study confirms the IPCC "scientists" beliefs in computer simulations were misplaced

(image source here)

Read here. Will the world's populace suffer from increasingly weird ear problems, more infections and aches due to global warming and climate change? How about more respiratory allergies or non-respiratory seizures?

Ask the IPCC "scientists" and the answer would be 'yes.' Why? Because their computer models told them so, thank you very much....Hmmm...remember how accurate the computer models were at predicting the predicting the swine flu apocalypse a few years back?

Fortunately for the world, the computer models used by the IPCC are again wrong. The impact of climate change on health has been nil and appears not to be highly correlated with most infections and diseases.

"The three US authors [Miller et al.] - who hail, respectively, from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston -- say "there is concern that climate change may affect hay fever and other allergic conditions by impacting pollen amount, pollen allergenicity, pollen season, and plant and pollen distribution," because "allergy and atopic disease rates are rising, and global warming has been implicated as a possible cause."...annual prevalence data for frequent otitis media (defined as three or more ear infections per year), respiratory allergy, and non-respiratory seizures in children were extracted from the US National Health Interview Survey for 1998 to 2006, while average annual temperatures for the same period were obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency...report that regression analysis found that (1) "annual temperature did not influence the prevalence of frequent otitis media," (2) "annual temperature did not influence prevalence of respiratory allergy," and (3) "annual temperature and sex did not influence seizure prevalence." [Mia E. Miller, Nina L. Shapiro, Neil Bhattacharyya 2012: American Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Medicine and Surgery]

Conclusion: The impact of climate change on health appears to be of little significance, according to health research experts, and, of course, contrary to the UN's highly publicized hysteria published by it climate politics agency, the IPCC.

Previous disease-infection-famine, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

The Liberal Media: James Fallows Gets Bamboozled By Hansen's Climate Disciples - Falls For Obvious Con

The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models

(click on images to enlarge)

Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?

These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.

The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?

• The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle,  gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!

The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.

• The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performance testimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.

Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.

• Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).

Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)

• Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.

As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).

Since the late-1980's, Hansen's global warming predictions, associated with 'business as usual' CO2 emissions (the green curve on rightmost chart above), have done poorly versus the climate reality.

The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.

Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.

Previous climate-model and mainstream-media postings. The 'C3' universe of charts.

Electric Car Advantages? The Volt's Arithmetic Adds Up To Auto 'Obamacare' For GM Cronies & Wealthy

For Obama's cronies and wealthy consumers, there are definite electric car advantages - for the average taxpayer, the Volt's arithmetic is truly reeeevolting

(click to enlarge image - source here)

Read here. The rash of Volt fires during early 2012 put the kibosh on sales of the electric 4-wheel barbeques, but during March 2012 they became red-hot (ooops) again. March sales figures were...ahem...'on fire' as each Chevy dealer sold at least three-quarters of a Volt each for the entire month...hot damn!

That March sales figure represents a huuuge 277% increase over the previous month sales figure! That translates to Volt sales taking a giant leap of...well...er...from 0.27 Volts per dealer to that red-hot figure of 0.76 volts per dealer. Woooweee....now we're cookin with gas batteries!

This 'Government Motors' (Uncle Sam owns 26% of GM) electric vehicle sales fiasco has been a overdone turkey for the taxpayer since Day 1. But for the wealthy who purchase this rolling $40,000+ Weber grill, they get subsidized by all the rest of us to the tune of $7,500, which Obama now wants increased to $10,000, per wealthy consumer. OMG, thank you Obamamama.

Now that is some really ugly Volt arithmetic for the average person to swallow, but wait.....it gets worse:

"The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle...GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized."

Conclusion: The electric car advantages are real for Obama's cronies and really, really ugly for taxpayers. We are paying Government Motors between $50,000-$250,000 per Volt that GM sells for $41,000.00. Damn that car is hot!

FAQ #1: Can I get the Fisker battery charger with the Volt?

Answer: Obama's Secret Service detail is now taking purchase orders for the enhanced, taxpayer subsidized, blonde versatile charger. Call +1 666-666-6666. Satisfaction guarnateed. No refunds. (just kidding - fake phone number, folks)

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

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

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

(click on image to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electric Car Advantages? The Obama-Funded Fisker EV Fails Its Consumer Reports Test

Electric car advantages disappear for the Obama-funded Fisker EV - Consumer Reports can't complete tests of Fisker due to its failing after only 180 miles

(click on image to pleasantly enlarge)

Read here. Good looking car, better looking battery charger - does she do maintenance too?

The electric vehicle initiative from the Obama team has been a colossal example of failed leadership and the incompetence of a Democrat / liberal government. The inept Obama loaned Fisker, a Finnish company, tax-payer multi-millions to build a $100,000 plus vehicle in Finland, not in the U.S.

Obama crony capitalism at its worst

Sooo.....what could go wrong? Well, Consumer Reports discovered the real electric car "advantages" when its test Fisker EV went kaput after only 180 miles. Like all of Obama's green expenditures (billions of dollars over past three years) this was another failure that reveals why governments should not be wasting tax-payer dollars subsidizing Al Gore and wealthy consumers.

p.s. Hey, can I keep the charger if my "Fisker" fails?

Previous electric-vehicle-hybrid postings.

Climate Modeling Failure: Simulations Unable To Replicate Actual AMO Variability In Greenland

The IPCC often claims its climate models are infallible and all knowing when it comes to the climate - new study reveals major climate modeling failure as they are unable to accurately simulate Greenland's past climate accurately

(click image to enlarge - source here)

Read here. Greenland's current climate is heavily influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which has a lengthy periodicity. The AMO is a natural climate variability phenomenon having a strong impact on North Atlantic's regional temperatures.

Recent analysis of the Greenland ice cores, by Chylek et al., has proven that the powerful AMO variability has been part and parcel of the Greenland climate for thousands of years, pushing temperatures higher and lower depending on the cycle point.

This natural, internal variability has no connection to external factors (forcings) such as the CO2 greenhouse gas.

In addition, the scientists determined that the climate models, favored by the IPCC and other non-empirical based scientists, are unable to faithfully mimic the ancient past AMO variability due to geographic differences (location differences) - a major climate modeling failure.

"...examine evidence of the AMO that is contained in several ice core records distributed across Greenland. The researchers were looking to see whether there were changes in the character of the AMO over different climatological periods in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period—periods that long preceded large-scale human aerosol emissions. And indeed they found some. The AMO during the Little Ice Age was characterized by a quasi-periodicity of about 20 years, while the during the Medieval Warm Period the AMO oscillated with a period of about 45 to 65 years...The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing...However, the geographic variability of these periodicities indicated by ice core data is not captured in model simulations." [Petr Chylek, Chris Kenneth Folland, Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K Dubey 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Conclusion: The climate (ie, temperatures) of Greenland and other northern latitude areas has principally been driven by the periodicity of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation. The non-accurate simulation of this variability is another climate modeling failure that needs to be addressed.

Previous climate-history, climate-model and peer-reviewed postings.

Real Extreme Climate Change: Lack of Global Warming Forces Major Alarmist To Admit He Was Wrong

The facts don't lie and the empirical evidence is overwhelming - tiny global warming over last 15 years causes James Lovelock to admit he was wrong - extreme climate change not in the cards

(click on image to enlarge - source here)

Read here. Who said an old dog (scientist) can't learn new tricks (or things)?

James Lovelock, the Gaia scientist, once proclaimed that humanity would soon end due to global warming from CO2. Yet over the last 15 years the lack of global warming has been significant and robust. And what did Lovelock do?

"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too...“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said."

As an objective scientist, he reviewed the actual empirical evidence and realized he had been wrong - catastrophic global warming was not happening and likely not to take place. The man has courage.

A real extreme climate change, so-to-speak, from a real scientist - accolades to James Lovelock, it's well deserved.

Nanny-State Government: Obama's Anti-Business Bureaucrats Lay Plans To Destroy Another Industry

The 'nanny state' government philosophy combined with Obama's anti-business bureaucrats extends well beyond the EPA and its destruction of the coal industry - the vitamin/supplement industry is the next victim

Read here. The anti-business looniness and big government bureaucrats not only reside in the EPA. Obama is now unleashing his 'nanny state' minions in an attempt to crush the vitamin/supplement industry, which Obama's Big Pharma cronies are cheering for.

Why do drug companies hate vitamins and supplements. Well...vitamins and supplements are a lot cheaper and safer preventative treatments than big pharma's inventory, which they get the MD white coat pill pushers stuffing down the throats of their patients. How much safer?

The latest data from 2010 has deaths from vitamins and supplements at zero (yes, ZERO!). And the drug company products? Their drugs cure kill about 125,000 per year on average.

Soooo.....the Obama anti-business team has now decided that the zero-death industry requires the heavy hand of nanny state regulators to make it "safer," yet the big drug companies continue to push tax payer subsidized medical-death on the gullible public. 

"Vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements have a tremendously safe track record, yet they are often singled out as being potentially dangerous by government agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...This – the notion that dietary supplements are unsafe -- is the premise behind the FDA's Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients, which would require the supplement industry to prove the safety of natural ingredients that, in many cases, have been on the market and used safely for decades...As new research from the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System reveals, there were zero deaths linked to nutritional supplements in 2010, the most current data available...the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a "safety factor" up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis....And, since supplements are not patented drugs, virtually no supplement manufacturers will be able to afford these "safety" studies, which means that many of the nutrients you now purchase at low prices will convert into high-priced drugs, or simply disappear from the market entirely."

Why don't drug companies manufacture their own vitamins and supplements? First, there is no tax-payer subsidized insurance to reap huge profits from, and secondly, there are no profit enhancing patents available on vitamins/supplements. And then there are the other reasons. Take your pick.

It's not difficult to understand why the big drug companies embrace the nanny state government that Obama's anti-business bureaucrats flourish in - big business cronies, with close ties to politicians and bureaucrats, also profit handsomely from over regulation of competition.

Survey: Is Bill McKibben A Pathological Liar About AGW? Blissfully Ignorant? A Climate Change Nutbag? Just Stuck-On-Stupid?

Listening to the claims of the well known anti-CO2 fanatic, one begins to seriously wonder if Bill McKibben is a pathological liar regarding global warming; or simply a climate change nutbag; or stupendously stuck-on-stupid; or blissfully ignorant of actual climate/weather science - regardless, his latest video certainly does confirm his renowned talent for extreme 'cherry-picking' [McKibben survey at bottom]

...... 

Read here. Clearly, McKibben 'cherry-picks' certain weather events that recently happened across the globe, and then remarkably claims that they are all "connected" to CO2-induced global warming.

Unfortunately for the viewers of this video, McKibben totally fails to explain that the world's top extreme weather experts can find no "connections" between these incidents and global warming.

In addition, he completely (conveniently?) ignores the continuous onslaught of natural disasters that took place prior to 1987, a period of supposed "safe" CO2 levels.

Finally, he fails to mention the obvious elephant in the global warming alarmist room - over the last 10 years there has been no global warming.

So...time for a survey...what's your take on McKibben?

Click Here for PollOnline Survey
Conjoint Analysis
| Polls
| Mobile Surveys

| Feedback Tab
View MicroPoll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(click on map to enlarge - map source)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(click on image to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(click on image to enlarge - source NASA)

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Scientist Bashes NYT's Climate Change 'Yellow Journalism': Is Reporter Justin Gillis A Liar?

Extreme 'cherry picking' by Justin Gillis of the NYT's is the new climate change yellow journalism - is a journalist who does not report the full truth to readers a liar?

Read here. Roger Pielke Jr. takes a New York Times reporter to task for extreme 'cherry picking' of climate data, scientific sources and opinions in regards to climate change. Roger pulls no punches in his contempt for activists posing as objective MSM reporters.

Pielke doesn't use the word 'liar' but one can faintly hear what he's thinking in this article:

"The Columbia Journalism Review has an informative and eye-opening interview with Justin Gillis, who covers climate change...I have been fairly critical of Gillis' reporting on this blog on several occasions (even awarding one of his stories the worst climate story ever in the NYT for its uncritical reporting of the NOAA billion-dollar disaster nonsense)...Gillis is remarkably candid and in doing so he provides a clear sense of where he is coming from -- the perspective that he brings is not plain vanilla journalism that you might expect from the paper of record, but journalism colored with a heavy tinge of yellow."

The NYTs has long ago departed from being an honest broker of global warming science and has energetically embraced and pushed the concept of 'climate change yellow journalism.'

"Both advocacy and journalism are fundamental to a healthy democracy, but when they are mixed together, especially on the news pages of the NYT, neither is served particularly well. Please count me among those who prefers to get news from plain vanilla journalism, not the yellow kind."

How bad has it become at the New York Times? It's now so bad that they always fail to even mention the multitude of recent studies and empirical evidence that robustly counters/contradicts the advocacy reporting of their "journalists."

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

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

(click on image to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

Previous climate-model postings and charts-diagrams.

March 2012: Alaska Is Coldest Spot In World With Temperatures 7 Degrees Below Normal

Global warming over last 10 years, as measured by satellites, has been non-existent - IPCC's CO2 climate models predicted at least a .2 degree increase every 10 years

Read here. March 2012 lower atmosphere temperatures represent the warmest March ever in the satellite (UAH / NASA) temperature dataset.

Despite the warmest March (and btw, 10 years of huge CO2 emission increases) global warming over last 10 years has been non-existent as adjacent chart reveals. Robust March warming rebound from La Niña lows is a natural result.

As is always the case, the "global warming" experienced in March is not really "global." Regions, such as Alaska's land and seas, suffered with record March cold - 7 degrees below normal, while Iowa had the warmest March ever.

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

Medieval Global Warming: Southern Hemisphere Research Documents Hotter Temps In Uruguay During MWP

A new study analyzing Uruguay's ancient mound settlements reveals the global medieval warming of the Southern Hemisphere - MWP temperatures warmer than those of present

(click on image to enlarge - image source)

Read here. The IPCC and Climategate scientists, such as Michael Mann, attempted to mislead the public and policymakers with claims that the Medieval Warming Period was an insignificant climate event only affecting the northern European areas. However, the empirical evidence continues to grow that the Southern Hemisphere experienced a global medieval warming climate also.

Analyzing sediment cores from the Merín Lagoon Basin, in the region of the ancient Uruguay 'Los Ajos' mound builders, it was determined from opal phytoliths that Uruguay's climate of 750 AD to 1350 AD was warmer and wetter than those of its current modern climate.

"Focusing on coastal lagoons within the Merin Lagoon Basin, which is located between 31-34°S and 52-54°W in the easternmost part of the South American plains, and working with phytoliths found within various sediment cores which they used to create a temperature index indicative of relative warmth, Bracco et al. discovered a period of time straddling the division of the last two millennia (AD 750-1350) that they identified as having "warmer and wetter conditions than those of the present."" [Roberto Bracco, Laura del Puerto, Hugo Inda, Daniel Panario, Carola Castiñeira, Felipe García-Rodríguez 2011: Quaternary International]

Conclusion: Medieval global warming was a significant climate phenomenon that empirically prevailed across the world and not just limited to the northern European/Atlantic region as fabricated by the IPCC.

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

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

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

(click on image to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Is global warming happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Global Cooling: 2012 Winter Is 2nd Coldest In Last 15 Years - By 2100, Winters Might Be 1 Degree Colder

If the current modern global cooling continues, winters in the Northern Hemisphere and summers in the Southern Hemispere could be colder - human CO2 emissions may actually be irrelevant

(click on images to enlarge)

From 1960 through 2011, over 1 trillion tons of CO2 have been emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels. The alarmist global warming theory requires that all those emissions still remain in the atmosphere - per the AGW alarmists, emissions will stay resident in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.

But as the empirical evidence mounts, those trillions of tons of emissions are having a very small impact on global temperatures - so small, many of the world's best scientists are now questioning the relevancy of human CO2 on the world's climate. The previous modern warming has convincingly morphed into modern global cooling.

The top left chart is a plot of CO2 levels versus global temperatures for December, January and February. These months are typically the coldest for the Northern Hemisphere's winter and warmest for the Southern Hemisphere's summer. As the chart reveals, the last 15 years have seen significant cooling for these three months - including 1998, the trend is a minus 1.3 degrees/century.

The chart on the right, plots the Dec-Jan-Feb temperatures from 1960. The blue shaded areas represent the cooling periods that sandwich the modern warming that ended in 1998 with a kaboom - the Super El Niño of 1998.

Clearly, the massive 1 trillion+ tons of CO2 emissions are not making global temperatures "accelerate" prior to 1977, nor for the post-1998 period.

Conclusions: Modern cooling has prevailed during the December, January and February months since 1998; vast human CO2 emissions are not producing a global warming climate; and, the current cooling phase could switch to warming, or remain as is, depending on natural climatic fluctuations, regardless of CO2.

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

Note: The above Excel charts plot the simple 3-month average of December, January and February anomalies from the HadCRUT monthly global dataset.

Ocean Acidification Fears Debunked: Cold Water Coral Proven To Acclimate & Prosper In Lower pH Environment

Climate alarmist claims that coral will suffer long-term harm due to lower pH levels proven wrong by new study - ocean "acidifcation" fears debunked, robustly

Read here. With the failed global warming alarmism proving to be non-sustainable due to lower global temperatures, alarmists made ocean "acidification" their next predicted calamity to cause world collapse.

Scientists decided to research and analyze the non-scientific acidification claims by conducting experiments on cold water coral, which is considered to be most susceptible to lower pH levels. Much like the left's / liberal's embrace of fraudulent anti-vaccine fears, the researchers found the irrational acidification fears to be misplaced also.

"Ocean acidification, often termed ‘the evil twin of global warming’, is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity dissolves into the oceans. Presently, the ocean takes up about 25% of man-made CO2, which has led to a decrease in seawater pH of 0.1 units since 1800. By 2100, surface ocean pH values can easily drop by another 0.3–0.4 units...the impacts it may have on marine organisms and ecosystems are still poorly understood. A major gap in our understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification on life in the sea is the potential of marine organisms to acclimate and adapt to increasing seawater acidity"..."they found was that in an experiment that lasted only 8 days, that the growth rate of the coral was slowed down by the dissolution of extra CO2 into the aquarium water...In a second experiment in which the coral specimens were exposed to lower pH levels for 178 days, the growth rate did not decline, and in fact, even appeared to increase under the lower pH (more acid) conditions...Instead, growth rate, which was comparable to that of the control treatment in the short-term experiment, stayed high at elevated CO2 levels." [Armin U., Ulf Riebesell 2012: Global Change Biology]

Conclusions: #1 Ocean acidification fears debunked; #2 species like coral may adversely be affected in the short-term but become acclimated over the long-term; and #3 coral and other ocean species have existed and prospered in seas with lower pH levels

Previous coral-threat, ocean-acidification and peer-reviewed postings.

Computer Models' Forecast of U.S. Winter Blows It Big Time - More Proof of Worthless Model Predictions

Weather models were the genesis for today's under-performing climate models that keep predicting last decade's bad predictions about global warming -  it's become GIGO built upon GIGO producing worthless model predictions

(click on image to enlarge)

H/T here. This adjacent U.S. weather forecast for the winter of 2011-2012 is additional evidence that computer model simulations are worthless.

They essentially become worthless as a predictive tool once the time-frame expands beyond 7 to 10 days.

(Pssst...Heather, find a new gig...the models are going to make you look stupid.)

More incredibly bad "expert" predictions.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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