The Massive NASA & IPCC Embarrassment: Hansen's Abysmal Global Warming Model Predictions
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
Previous failed-prediction postings. Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.
Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC's HadCRUT Data Confirms CO2's Small Impact On Global Warming
The IPCC's "Climate Bible" relies on the HadCRUT (HC) global temperature dataset for its analysis - the last 100 years of HC data reveals the weak CO2 and global warming relationship
A previous 'C3' post regarding CO2 and NOAA / NCDC global temperatures generated a lot of interest, especially the second chart titled: "The Case Against CO2." That chart revealed that CO2's impact on global temperatures was essentially very weak over the last 50 years, ending 2011, versus the prior 50 years ending 1961.
We received questions as to how the famous HadCRUT (the IPCC's favorite global temperature dataset) compared to the previously used NOAA/NCDC dataset. The adjacent chart shows the result of switching to the all important HC data.
As one can discern from this chart, the result is essentially the same for the two datasets (see previous NOAA/NCDC chart).
Conclusions:
- The 50-year period ending 1961 had little CO2 growth, yet global temperatures increased significantly more than the "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming of the 50-year period ending 2011.
- The growth of CO2 levels has an inconsistent effect on global temperatures suggesting the CO2 and temperature relationship is not robust - it is actually frail
- Global temperatures are not "accelerating" because of CO2 during the last 50 years
- Modern global warming over last 50 years was not "unprecedented" versus earlier periods
- Other climate dynamics and inputs primarily drive temperature and climate change - the trace gas CO2 has only a trace impact in comparison
Previous accelerated-warming postings. Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.
Data sources for Excel chart: here, here and here.
NOAA's Climate Science Data Firmly Establishes That CO2 Is Not Earth's Temperature "Thermostat"
Many global warming alarmist scientists make the claim that CO2 is the world's thermostat - NOAA climate evidence totally debunks that bogus claim
The urban myth of the all powerful climate trace gas CO2 has led both alarmist climate scientists and EPA bureaucrats with political agendas to actually claim that CO2 is like a furnace's thermostat. Just dial the increase/decrease of CO2 change desired, and like a furnace, the earth's temperature will respond up/down accordingly.
That claim is robust, bogus political propaganda with zero scientific merit, as NOAA's empirical science collection efforts have well established. (click chart to enlarge)
This chart plots actual annual changes in atmospheric levels (from 1880 through 2011) versus actual annual changes in NOAA/NCDC global temperatures for the same time period. As can be seen, the annual change in CO2 (the black columns) have little if any impact of annual temp change (the red-orange curve). The R^2 measurement of the CO2 and temperature relationship is a meager +0.016 - that would be a R^2 of teeny-weeny proportions (essentially there is no cause and effect relationship).
The longer term view supports that finding also. The green curve on the chart is the 20-year average of CO2 level changes; the blue curve is the 20-year average of global temperature changes. Clearly, changes in CO2 are not driving changes in temperatures - CO2 is not a "thermostat".
Conclusions:
- Global annual temperature changes are not a result of changes in CO2 levels
- CO2 is not some magical global thermostat
- Other climate dynamics drive major temperature change and climate change
- The above conclusions do not preclude CO2 having a consistently minor, beneficial warming influence on global temperatures
Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts.
Data sources for Excel chart and R^2 calculation: global temperature and 1959-2011 CO2 and pre-1959 CO2
Can Climate Models Predict Snowfall? EU Researchers Ascertain Models Are Worthless For Snowfall
Often climate models are utilized for specific regional climate forecasts - scientists determine that for regional snowfalls, the models are worthless
Read here. It is well established that climate models have been atrocious at predicting global warming and other climate attributes. This lack of predictive skill globally is compounded when these models attempt to make regional predictions such as snowfall in a specific region.
EU scientists, Soncini and Bocchiola, analyzed snowfall predictions by two major climate models for the Italian Alps region. The models did not perform as advertised.
"The authors write that "General Circulation Models (GCMs) are widely adopted tools to achieve future climate projections." They note, however, that "one needs to assess their accuracy, which is only possible by comparison of GCMs' control runs against past observed data,"...investigated the accuracy of simulations of snowfall throughout the Italian Alps that were provided by two GCMs...included within the family of models employed by the IPCC. This was done by comparing the models' output with a set of comprehensive ground data obtained from some 400 snow-gauging stations located within the region of interest for the period 1990-2009...determined that "the investigated GCMs provide poor depiction of the snowfall timing and amount upon the Italian Alps," noting, in fact, that the HadCM3 model actually "displays considerable snowfall during summer," which they indicate "is clearly not supported by ground data"..."given the poor depiction of snowfall by the GCMs here tested, we suggest that care should be taken when using their outputs for predictive purposes."" [A. Soncini, D. Bocchiola 2011: Cold Regions Science and Technology]
Additional failed-predictions, severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings.
Ocean Heat Content: Climate Models Continue To Fail Miserably At Predicting OHC
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
Additional climate-model postings.
Scientists Discover That Frequency of Super Hurricanes Has Declined Significantly Over Last 600 Years
Super hurricane frequency was greater thousands of years ago when CO2 levels were low - new evidence shows modern global warming has not caused an increase
The IPCC and other global warming alarmists predicted that the frequency of extreme hurricanes would increase because of CO2-induced global warming. At least that's what their theory told them.
Recently, climate researchers analyzed a large Florida sinkhole that had hurricane evidence going back some 4,500 years. This new empirical evidence now establishes that super hurricane frequency was much greater thousands of years ago, and that the modern era has experienced far fewer of these monster storms despite human CO2 and warming.
"Lane et al. developed a 4500-year record of intense hurricane-induced storm surges based on data obtained from "a nearly circular, 200-m-diameter cover-collapse sinkhole...reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these "high-magnitude" events "peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago." Thereafter, it suggests that they were "relatively rare" with "about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago," after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which "began around 600 years ago" and has persisted through the present with "below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia."" [Philip Lane, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Jonathan D. Woodruff, Andrea D. Hawkes 2011: Marine Geology]
Previous severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings. Severe-weather charts.
NASA's Research Substantiates Trend Towards Global Cooling - Human "Global Warming" From CO2 Has Disappeared
Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2
(click on images to enlarge)
The AGW alarmist claim of "accelerating" global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data - the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).
The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS "acceleration" and "deceleration."
From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.
These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting "accelerating" warming.
Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.
Conclusions:
- Global temperatures are decelerating, not accelerating
- Rising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increase
- Climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robust
- IPCC predictions of "runaway" temps and climate "tipping points" are without empirical merit
Additional global and regional temperature charts. Previous failed-prediction postings.
Download data file used in above Excel charts
Subarctic Seas: Latest Study Confirms Modern Temperatures Well Below Roman & Medieval Temps
Experts reconstruct sea surface temperatures off of Norway - evidence confirms this subarctic region was warmer during Roman and Medieval times
Read here. It's another peer reviewed study published that refutes Mann's 'hockey stick' caricature of past temperatures over the last 2000 years. (click image to enlarge)
Modern warming is not unprecedented as claimed by the IPCC's Climategate "scientists."
"Sejrup et al established exceptionally accurate chronologies for two marine sediment cores raised from the same location on the Norwegian continental margin...they developed the δ18O history depicted in the figure [adjacent], which they use as a proxy for what they call "near surface water summer temperature." And as this history clearly shows, the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was significantly greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has been to date." [H.P. Sejrup, H. Haflidason, J.T. Andrews 2011: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Additional climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.
"Science" By Lubchenco's NOAA: Fake Global Warming, Part III
The NOAA under Lubchenco's control continues to make a mockery of empirical-based science as global warming fabrication continues unchecked
This is an update from the two previous posts, here and here. During the month of December, NOAA / NCDC revised their published historical temperature dataset at least 6 times - affecting monthly historical temperatures going back to 1880. These major revisions were not constrained to just a few recent months or a few recent years, but to all the historical empirical records.
If doing it 6 times in December wasn't bizarre enough, the NOAA "scientists" have already revised the entire dataset 3 times during January (the month isn't even over yet). [Ed. Good news: No new revised datasets in last 2 days, which means the incessant changes may be halted until next month]
Since the Obama administration takeover of NOAA / NCDC, it has been on a tear to fabricate global warming, conducting major temperature fabrication on an almost monthly basis, which has now culminated to producing multiple major revisions per month. (click to enlarge images)
(Above is a sample of revisions, including 2 (of 3) done in January 2012.)
Defenders of Lubchenco's empirical evidence revisionism refer to the constant revisions as "quality control" which is categorically one of the lamest piles of B.S. uttered in the debate on global warming. If the 'QC' defense had even an ounce of truth to it, it would mean every single previous revision had "quality control" issues even though each was a result of the same quality control process.
Plus, in contrast to the 7 major revisions done by NOAA / NCDC over the last 4 weeks, there has been only one major revision by GISS and zero for HadCRUT, UAH and RSS. (These other alphabet climate agencies do not do major revisions every single month, let alone multiple major revisions to the historical record within a month.)
Simply put, the 'big green' activist Lubchenco must have a political agenda that calls for the NCDC dataset exhibiting more "global warming."
Needless to say, her servile puppet-scientists have performed that task since 2008, month-in and month-out, as the change in the global warming trend exhibits (red is new trend; blue is old) in the adjacent chart.
[Bonus recommendation to NOAA/ NCDC: Publish only one set of numbers per month; avoid changing historical temperatures prior to 1990; and, make future changes random so that they don't appear to be purposefully warming specific periods while cooling others. Food for thought.]
BTW, this Excel chart represents the typical way that alarmists portray "runaway" global warming. That red trend line leaves the impression that global warming will go through the roof by 2100. In fact though, that red trend line indicates a "global warming" of about +0.5°C by year 2100. To mislead the public and policymakers, alarmist scientists and the mainstream press typically avoid putting numeric linear trend information on the chart, for very obvious reasons.
Additional modern, fabricated-fake and historical temperature charts.
Download data file of NOAA's January 2012 revisions (3 so far) of historical temperature dataset.
X-File Climate Science In Dublin: When The Government Needs "Global Warming" It Just Happens
Climate research agencies are hellbent on proving their global warming case, even to the point of fabricating higher temperatures
Read here. Steve Goddard identifies another amazing instance of NASA X-Files climate science: robust man-made global warming from a PC.
Per this chart, Dublin was significantly cooler until NASA "scientists" literally changed the empirical evidence.
As they say: Trust no one - especially government employed/funded climate scientists.
New NOAA Data Debunks Establishment Science & MSM Claim of Dangerous "Accelerating" Warming
Science elites and their mainstream press comrades have been pushing the fantasy of rapid, accelerating global warming - NOAA proves they were lying
The claim that human CO2 causes rapid, accelerating global warming is empirically a very bogus statement.
As evident by the adjacent NOAA / NCDC data, the "accelerating" warming claim is without merit - it is a literally a myth that MSM reporters and establishment science elites use to serve their political agenda purposes.
As the orange circles indicate, annual temperature change constantly fluctuates between positive and negative values, and the blue 10-year average reveals zero "accelerated" warming. The growth of CO2 levels (grey columns and curve) reveals little influence on temperature change.
To put this in real world context, think about it this way:
1. If a portfolio manager said the orange circles represent accelerating investment returns, year after year, that person would likely be incarcerated or institutionalized for blatant fraud.
2. If the Google CEO told his board of the directors that the orange circles represent accelerating growth of Google profits, year after year, the board (even board member Al Gore) would have no choice but to fire the CEO for either gross stupidity or robust lying.
Is it any wonder that the American public trust in the mainstream press and the climate science establishment continues to plunge?
Previous accelerating-temperature postings. Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
Data sources for Excel chart: NCDC annual anomalies and annual CO2 levels.
NOAA's 2011 Global Temperature Dataset Released & Confirms That IPCC's "Global Warming" Is DOA
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just released today their global temperature dataset for the year ending 2011 (and yes, they conducted another bizarre revision of the entire historical dataset - more on that in a later posting). (click on images to enlarge)
The chart on the left plots the NCDC global temperatures for the last 15 years ending 2011, plus the atmospheric CO2 levels. As the empirical evidence undeniably shows, there is no correlation between global temps and CO2, and the blue curve actually suggests a movement towards a cooling era.
The linear trend for the NCDC temperatures represents an increase by year 2100 of only +0.40°C degree - definitely not "accelerating" warming using anyone's definition. (see new post on "accelerating" here)
The measly "global warming" of the last 15 years is one story and another interesting story about global warming is found in looking at the last 100 years. When the 100 year span is broken into 50-year segments, one ending 2011 and the other ending 1961, the myth of dangerous global warming from human CO2 emissions really starts to unravel. (see update with HadCRUT temperature data)
The first red bar on second chart (chart on right) represents the increase of the 2011 mean temperature over that of 1961; the second red bar represents the increase of the 1961 mean temperature over that of 1911. Clearly, the increase of the mean temperature during the first 50-year period surpasses that of the last 50-year period ending 2011.
And the greater increase in mean temperature during the first 50 year period took place with a smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as depicted by the grey bars. In fact, the CO2 level increase over the last 50 years was greater than 4 times the earlier 50-year period.
The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.
Summary: Both global warming and cooling have happened in the recent past, and both will occur again over the next 100 years, regardless of CO2 emissions.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
Data sources for Excel charts: NCDC monthly anomalies, annual anomalies, monthly CO2 levels and annual CO2 levels.
EU Research Indicates A Tiny 2.7 Inch Sea Level Rise By 2100 & NOAA Has Ocean Temps Declining
Latest EU satellite measurements puts sea rise at meager 2.7 inch rate by 2100 and NOAA can't find global warming in the oceans
Empirical evidence is a real bitch for 'big green' and the IPCC Climategate scientists, and, of course, James Hansen.
Per the trends, sea levels will be 2.7 inches higher in 2100 with ocean temperatures being lower by -0.5°C. (Note: trends are not predictions)
Since late 2003 the EU has had its own satellite to measure sea levels. With that new technology, they have determined that the sea's are barely rising (see blue curve in chart), in contrast to the prediction of "accelerating" sea level increases by the IPCC's minions, and the prediction of "boiling" ocean temperatures by others.
Boiling oceans!!!? Yup...James Hansen, a climate "expert," has recently been caught on video actually claiming that if ocean temperatures continue their trend they will begin to boil - see video here. This is the Madoff-style climate science that the elites eagerly swallow hook, line and sinker.
Previous sea-level and failed-prediction postings. Sea-level and modern temperature charts.
Stop The Hollywood-Bought Congressional Representatives & Senators From Censoring The Internet
Visit www.wikipedia.org today and capture their "blackout" page for posterity. Also, 'Tweet' your Senator and Representative from the 'blackout' page telling them you oppose SOPA and PIPA legislation.
Hollywood is attacking the basic Internet freedom we all enjoy through their paid-for puppets in Congress. Any Congressional critter who supports this type of legislation should be removed from office, no questions asked. Also, boycott any company or organization found on this list of SOPA/PIPA supporters.
Thousands of liberal, conservative and libertarian blogs/sites are joining forces to battle Hollywood's draconian anti-piracy legislative attempts that will result in the Internet being effectively censored. Here are four videos explaining why the SOPA/PIPA Hollywood legislation should be killed.
New Jet Propulsion Lab Analysis of Global Climate Model: Simulations of Arctic Ice Are 'Rather Poor'
More evidence that computer climate models are unable to produce accurate simulations of climate reality - the models can't do the Arctic
Well...as is the case with any computer climate model simulation, peer reviewed research finds the global climate models are also worthless for accurately predicting the Arctic climate, let alone the entire global climate.
"Specifically, he writes that (1) "Zhang and Walsh (2006) noted that even though the CMIP3 models capture the negative trend in sea ice area, the inter-model scatter is large," that (2) "Stroeve et al. (2007) show that few models exhibit negative trends that are comparable to observations," and that (3) "Eisenman et al. (2007) conclude that the results of current CMIP3 models cannot be relied upon for credible projections of sea ice behavior."...analysis demonstrates that "the skill of the CMIP3 models (as a group) in simulation of observed Arctic sea ice motion, Fram Strait export, extent, and thickness between 1979 and 2008 seems rather poor."..."...and that "the spatial pattern of Arctic sea ice thickness, a large-scale slowly varying climatic feature of the ice cover, is not reproduced in a majority of the models." Consequently, he writes that "the models will not get the main features of natural sea ice variability that may be dominating recent sea ice extent declines..." [R. Kwok 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans]
Additional polar-glacier-sea-ice, failed-prediction and peer-reveiwed postings.
IPCC "Climate Science" Fail Is Major Embarrassment To Establishment Science: IPCC Can't Predict Squat
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts
As the adjacent chart shows, atmospheric CO2 levels have been methodically rising. Per the IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts, the rising CO2 should cause a water vapor "tipping point" that would cause "runaway" warming. It hasn't, on both counts.
The bold blue curve reveals atmospheric relative humidity actually decreasing (less water vapor) over the last 17 years since the end of 1994. The bold red curve represents the slowing growth of atmospheric warming, as measured by NASA's own satellite.
In essence, the fabled positive feedback the climate models use does not exist, and climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is robustly lower than assumed.
If the 17-year satellite linear trend were to continue unchanged, the global temperature increase by year 2100 would be only +1.13 degrees, well below the IPCC's minimum prediction. The last 10-year linear trend (not shown in chart) indicates an increase of a measly +0.3 degrees for global temps by 2100, which would be barely perceptible.
Simply stated, the IPCC can't predict squat, especially anything to do with climate changes due to human CO2. Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
Note: This analysis used a 17-year span, which Climategate's infamous Ben Santer prefers. Download data file used for Excel chart (CO2 data was superimposed on temperature and humidity chart).
Antarctica: IPCC Proven Conclusively Wrong By Newest Research - South Pole Cooling
The Antarctica climate evidence is irrefutable - the southern polar region is cooling, not warming as IPCC predicted
(click on images to enlarge)
Read here. The chart on the left is new empirical evidence released by the German climate research organization, the Alfred Wegener Institute. Their polar weather station temperature records clearly confirm the cooling trend as previously measured by satellite over the last 30 years (chart on the right).
In addition, a new peer reviewed study found that over the last 30 years the Antarctica snowmelt has been trending down, which substantiates the observed cooler temperatures as the above plots show.
"Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades.....The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states, "other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability." Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf." [P. Kuipers Munneke, G. Picard, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, E. van Meijgaard 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Previous polar-ice-sheet-glacier, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings. Modern and regional temperature charts.
"Warming" Iceland Robustly Using The Climate-Liars Scientific Methodology
An example of blatant data manipulation and temperature fabrication by climate scientists - "we need to make Iceland warmer"
Read here. Steve Goddard finds another classic example of temperature fabrication involving Iceland records. Misleading the public and policymakers has become a corrupt science art-form, unchallenged by the political ruling elites and their puppet, the mainstream press.
As this style of climate-liar "science" is applied to all past temperature records, large "man-made" global warming is a no-brainer.
Additional fabricating-fake temperature and modern temperature charts.
Peer Reviewed Study: Increased Solar Flux Drove Global Warming During 20th Century
New research published in 2011 & 2012 continues to build on a major 1999 study that found increased sun activity (solar flux, etc.) is a significant cause of modern global warming
While reviewing the bounty of solar and climate information found at the Global Warming Science site, we found the adjacent chart (this is the 'C3' revised version using annual HadCRUT global temperatures instead of monthly).
Clearly, there is a strong relationship between solar activity (magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.
The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human-CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC's anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists.
Read here. From the original 1999 study:
"The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964." [M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild 1999: Nature]
Read here. From a 1999 review of this study:
"The authors examined measurements of near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868...authors were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has risen by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996. Surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field previous to this time indicate that this parameter has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901...results of this study lead us to wonder just how much of the reported 0.6°C global temperature rise of the last century might be a result of the more than two-fold increase in the total magnetic solar flux over that period. We may now, at long last, be moving closer than ever in our effort to understand the importance of the sun in driving 20th century climate change."
Previous solar-climate and peer-reviewed postings. Solar/cosmic temperature charts.
Global Warming: A U.S. Presidential Candidate Actually Uses His Common Sense & Scientific Evidence
Ron Paul makes candid comments regarding global warming and climate change - employs empirical evidence instead of highly speculative predictions
Read here. 'C3' readers are well aware that there is absolutely zero empirical evidence to suggest that human CO2 emissions will cause rapid global warming with catastrophic climate change being the result. Likewise, 'C3' readers know well that all the global climate models have an absolutely atrocious record regarding their catastrophic climate predictions.
It would appear Ron Paul agrees and approaches the global warming issue and human CO2 emissions with a reliance on empirical-based science, not the Ouijia-board science of climate model predictions.
"I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years...Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon."
It's refreshing to hear a candidate who does not pander to the climate hysteria of the anti-science left / liberal mainstream press.
Data Confirmation: UK Temperature Change Not A Result of Higher CO2 Levels
Per the famous Central England Temperature dataset, the long predicted global warming apocalypse from CO2 is not happening
(click on charts to enlarge)
The adjacent chart is a plot of the oldest temperature record available: the Central England Temperature dataset.
Despite massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the last 60 years, the long-term trend remains well below a one degree (+0.26°C) increase per century rate.
As the inset chart reveals, the more recent 10-year trend has the representative UK region cooling at an amazing -8.7°C per century rate (a -7.7°C decrease by year 2100).
The following chart is a plot of one-year temperature changes (moving 12-month), with the historical CO2 levels depicted. Clearly, one-year temperature changes are not getting larger, and ever larger, as an "accelerated" warming climate would require.
The red curve is a twenty-year average of the temperature changes, which indicates no long-term influence on CET temperature change by CO2 levels, natural or human.
Conclusion: UK citizens need not worry about "rapid," "accelerating" and "irreversible" warming. There is no credible empirical evidence supporting such CO2-AGW alarmism.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Data Sources: CET & CO2. Charts created with Excel. Note: Linear trends are not predictions.
Scientists Predicted Australia Would Become The 'Drought' Continent: They Were Wrong
As this updated climate map reveals, the severe drought condition for Australia during 2011 was essentially non-existent. The IPCC-based climate science predicted more frequent and intense droughts, which has not been the case.
Previous severe-weather and failed-prediction postings. Severe-weather charts.
Global Warming & U.S. Severe Weather: Latest Data Reveals There To Be No Link
Due to the incredibly bad reporting by the mainstream press, many Americans believe the U.S. suffers from "accelerated warming" and increasing severe weather - neither are true
First, as the adjacent chart reveals, U.S. temperatures are not "accelerating." The red curve is the 12-month moving average (since 1895), which clearly shows no acceleration, and shows zero relationship to the growing levels of atmospheric CO2 levels (black dots).
As can be seen, U.S. monthly temperatures have a wide variation (the blue up/down plot) in any given year, fluctuating between low and high extremes.
Again, no "accelerating" warming trend is evident from the actual temperature empirical evidence. (click on charts to enlarge)
Read here. This second chart plots the total number of severe tornadoes (F2, F3, F4 & F5) in decade groups (the 2000's include 2011). This actual empirical evidence substantiates that severe weather events, as represented by extreme tornadoes, are not increasing in the U.S.
Conclusion: The mainstream press (eg., NYT, WaPo, Time, CBS, NBC, LA Times, etc.) willfully and unequivocally reports misinformation regarding severe weather and global warming. They do so to purposefully mislead the public and policymakers regarding global warming and climate change.
Previous severe-weather postings. Modern temperatures and severe-weather charts.
World's Best Ocean Scientists Confirm Skeptics Correct: Ocean Acidification Hysteria Is Unwarranted
'Big Green' anti-science and mainstream media's hysterical reporting on ocean acidification has been proven to be meritless - rising ocean acidification is not a problem
Read here. New empirical research determines that extreme variation in pH levels of sea waters occurs naturally and frequently. The extremes are so great that marine life is often exposed to "acidified" waters without being threatened in the course of daily life.
Human CO2 emissions are not causing the extreme pH ranges currently existing in sea waters.
The peer-reviewed research by Hofman et al completely vindicates the skeptics' position of ocean acidification and thoroughly exposes the common alarmist position - hysterical leftist / liberal / progressive anti-science that is never able to withstand the scrutiny of scientific empirical research.
"The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis."..."Here, we present a compilation of continuous, high-resolution time series of upper ocean pH, collected using autonomous sensors, over a variety of ecosystems ranging from polar to tropical, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100." [Gretchen E. Hofmann, Jennifer E. Smith, Kenneth S. Johnson, Uwe Send, Lisa A. Levin, Fiorenza Micheli, Adina Paytan, Nichole N. Price, Brittany Peterson, Yuichiro Takeshita, Paul G. Matson, Elizabeth Derse Crook, Kristy J. Kroeker, Maria Cristina Gambi, Emily B. Rivest, Christina A. Frieder, Pauline C. Yu, Todd R. Martz 2011: Plos One]
Previous ocean-acidification and peer-reviewed postings.
The IPCC's Killing Machines: Unable To Predict Accurately, IPCC Climate Models Ultimately Cause Deaths
Policymakers reliance on the significantly wrong United Nations' IPCC climate model predictions is leading to needless death and suffering - East Africa is recent example
Read here. Map source here. Both recent peer reviewed empirical research and anecdotal evidence clearly indicate that the UN's IPCC's climate models are notoriously wrong.
Not only have its models been conclusively wrong about CO2-caused global warming over the last 15 years, but the climate models' regional predictions are often diametrically opposite of reality. These bad regional predictions are causing policymakers to make incredibly stupid decisions based on an IPCC computer simulation, which ultimately causes needless deaths and suffering.
Egregiously wrong regional IPCC forecasts for East Africa are the latest example of these worthless, killer climate model predictions:
"The quality of the global models are too poor to give any clear information about regional climate change. We can state for the various regions, where there is some information, to what extend there is agreement between models etc. However, even agreement amongst models does not at this stage allow for any thorough assessment about uncertainties about changes."
""We thought trouble was coming“, describing “how his group last year forecast the drought in Somalia that is now turning into famine — and how that warning wasn’t enough” and in particular lamenting that: The global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were never intended to provide rainfall trend projections for every region. These models say that East Africa will become wetter, yet observations show substantial declines in spring rainfall in recent years. Despite this, several agencies are building long-term plans on the basis of the forecast of wetter conditions."
NOAA Research Documents The Robust Cooling of U.S. Over Last 15 Years, "Global Warming" Non-Existent
The NOAA / NCDC climate research group published year-end U.S. temperature data confirming that U.S. is still cooling - CO2 has zero global warming impact on U.S.
As the Climategate 2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the chart below depicts. (click on to enlarge)
This "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending December was the 5th coldest December-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, December 2011 was the 22nd warmest since 1895 (December 1998 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.4°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending December 2011 (Januart 1, 2002 thru December, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 7.2°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
Other modern temperature charts. Historical and fabrication-temperature charts that support the position of global warming skeptics
Latest Satellite Data: Human CO2 Emissions Have Caused Earth To Cool Over Past 15 Years
Satellite measurements confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab: Major Impact On Arctic Sea Ice Melt Is Nature's Own 'Arctic Oscillation'
Scientists from Jet Propulsion Lab and Univ. of Washington determine that fresh water from Russia's rivers and the Arctic Oscillation are major factors for Arctic sea ice melt
Read here. The 'Big Green' controlled IPCC and the typical Climategate scientist have publicly claimed that the recent Arctic sea ice melt is entirely due to human CO2 emissions. The majority of climate scientists don't agree with this IPCC stance, knowing full well that other natural and human influences are at work in the Arctic.
New research, by scientists from the University of Washington and NASA's Jet propulsion Lab, have now discovered that freshwater from several large Russian rivers is being relocated to certain regions in the Arctic that allows other regions to be more vulnerable to increased sea ice melt. The force that is redirecting freshwater is not human CO2 but instead nature's own Arctic Oscillation.
This latest research confirms that any speculation of human CO2 emissions being the major cause of sea ice melting is likely very wrong. (image source)
"A hemisphere-wide phenomenon – and not just regional forces – has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea"..."Frigid freshwater flowing into the Arctic Ocean from three of Russia’s mighty rivers was diverted hundreds of miles to a completely different part of the ocean in response to a decades-long shift in atmospheric pressure associated with the phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation"..."In the Eurasian Basin, the change means less freshwater enters the layer known as the cold halocline and could be contributing to declines in ice in that part of the Arctic...The cold halocline normally sits like a barrier between ice and warm water that comes into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. Without salt the icy cold freshwater is lighter, which is why it is able to float over the warm water...In the Beaufort Sea, the water is the freshest it’s been in 50 years of record keeping, he said. The new findings show that only a tiny fraction is from melting ice and the vast majority is Eurasian river water."
New Unequivocal Empirical Evidence: Antarctica's Past Climate Warmer Than Modern, Over Last 450 Years
New Antarctica evidence conclusively refutes IPCC global warming scientists' speculation that modern temperatures are "unprecedented" and "accelerating" higher
Read here. The UN's IPCC attempted to convince the public and policymakers that there was a scientific "consensus" that the last 150 years have witnessed "accelerating" global warming that is "unprecedented."
Instead, the evidence now points to the IPCC and its Climategate scientists conspiring to mislead. Thankfully, the vast majority of the world's scientists do not believe in the IPCC's climate political-science proclamations and thus continue performing/producing empirical research to determine the science truth.
The non-IPCC research team of Thamban et al is an example of this and the adjacent chart (click to enlarge) is a product of their research: Antarctica's modern temperatures are not unusual, nor are they rapidly warming versus what has occurred naturally in the historical past. As the evidence clearly shows, a natural warming has been taking place over the last 400+ years.
"Working with an ice core (IND-22/B4) that had been extracted during the austral summer of 2003 from the coastal region of Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica... -- the authors developed 470-year histories of δ18O and δD that "showed similar down core fluctuations with [an] excellent positive relationship (R2 = 0.9; n = 216) between the two."..."the estimated surface air temperature at the core site revealed a significant warming of 2.7°C with a warming of ~0.6°C per century for the past 470 years."..."...Thamban et al.'s results clearly indicate that all three of these climate-alarmist claims are false in regard to this portion of the planet's southern polar region." [Meloth Thamban, C. M. Laluraj, Sushant S. Naik and Arun Chaturvedi 2011: Journal of the Geological Society of India]
Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.
NOAA Climate Scientists Gone Wild: Bizarro Temperature Data Fabrication Continues
The embarrassing outright fabrication of the global temperature dataset continues at NOAA / NCDC - Obama's anti-science regime not challenged by the mainstream press
How bizarre is changing historical temperatures, all the way back to 1880, on a monthly basis? Recently, we wrote about NOAA's monthly temperature revisionism and the political, anti-science agenda that's driving it, global warming alarmism. [Ed: part III here]
Well, it's definitely bizarre science since other major climate agencies are not doing the same.
Amazingly though, the NOAA / NCDC agencies are now seemingly dissatisfied with just monthly fabrications. They apparently have now embraced almost daily revisionism of historical temperatures.
Although we did not check the NOAA / NCDC dataset on a daily basis during the month of December, we did check six times, downloading six different historical datasets. Did we say bizarro? (image source)
There is no rational explanation for continuously fabricating a new historical temperature dataset multiple times during a month, let alone a year. [Note: You can download the six December 2012 revisions of historical data by Obama's "science" team here.]
Of course, the mainstream press (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, CBS, MSNBC, etc.) refuses to report on the actual bogus and fraud Bernie Madoff-like science that is being perpetrated by their comrades in the climate science bureaucracy. Obviously, for the left / liberal / progressive / Democrat anti-science mindset, fabricating empirical evidence is not bizarro.....
- From Wikipedia: "...introduced the strange speech patterns that became synonymous with the character, with all of Bizarro's comments meaning the opposite (e.g.. "bad" means "good")."
[Editor's special note: The NOAA/NCDC revisions this post is about are entire historical temperature dataset revisions being done multiple times per year and even multiple times per month (December 2011). We are not referring to the common practice of revising the temperatures of a few recent months that is done by all climate agencies frequently.]
Nasa's Hansen's Latest Analysis Confirms Minor Ocean Warming: A Tiny Increase of Only +0.15°C By 2100
New peer reviewed study by James Hansen of NASA / GISS measures recent ocean heat content and his data indicates insignificant warming - thus, oceans by year 2100 will not warm much
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does the number crunching on the Hansen et al 2011 analysis that earth has a serious energy imbalance, and this "imbalance" is represented by an ocean warming equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy over the period of 2005 - 2010.
Now, +0.54 W/m2 sounds like a very serious energy imbalance indeed until one translates what that means in degrees Celsius of ocean warming, then projecting that "warming" out to year 2100. That is exactly what Willis's number crunching did and he discovered that based on Hansen's "serious" energy imbalance that oceans will warm by a laughable and by a barely measurable amount of:
+0.15C degree by 2100 AD
Above is the formula that Willis used to convert the "serious" imbalance into actual degrees warming
Adjacent, is an Excel representation of calculations done by Willis. (click to enlarge)
You can download this 'C3' Excel file to examine/play with the calcs. (If you find an error in our representation of Willis's work, please email us.)
Modern and historical temperature charts.
Current North Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Well Below Those of Medieval Warming Period, New Study Finds
Latest scientific research completely debunks Michael Mann's bogus hockey stick chart - North Atlantic ocean temperatures warmer during Medieval Warming
Read here. As the adjacent chart reveals, both the Roman and Medieval periods included significantly warmer sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic region.
Around 1250 AD, the Little Ice Age started a cooling process of the sea surface temperatures, which modern warming has yet to recover from.
There is no hockey stick as claimed by Michael Mann. There is no "unprecedented" and "accelerating" warming as claimed by the IPCC. The empirical evidence does not support the left / liberal / progressive / Democrat claim of dangerous climate change due to CO2 warming.
"A paper published today in the journal Paleoceanography finds that Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures have significantly cooled over the past millennium, since the Medieval Warming Period from about 950-1200 AD...Cooling by ∼0.5°C takes place between about AD 1250 and AD 1500; while this corresponds to the inception of the Little Ice Age (LIA), the end of the LIA is not reflected in our record and SST remains relatively low. This transition to cooler SSTs parallels the previously reconstructed shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation toward a low pre-20th century mean state and possibly reflects common solar forcing." [Henning Kuhnert, Stefan Mulitza 2011: Paleoceanography]
Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.
New Research Confirms That Urban (UHI) Warming Accounts For Over 50% Of All Climate Warming
Regions of the world that exhibit significant warming over recent decades is likely the result of a robust urban heat island effect - South Korea's warming climate provides evidence
Read here. The global warming that has happened in recent past is due to a combination of factors, both man-made and natural. The natural production of warming is a result of the ongoing expected rebound from the Little Ice Age, solar/cosmic influences and normal climate cycles/oscillations.
The human influence on global warming takes many forms, including the result of human CO2 emissions. What has been well known and established long ago is that urban areas are warmer than rural areas - this human condition on the climate is referred to as the 'urban heat island' effect. The robustness of this human effect has been confirmed by new peer reviewed research by scientists analyzing South Korea's temperatures since 1954.
"The cities that show great warming due to urbanization are Daegu, Pohang, Seoul, and Incheon, which show values of about 1.35, 1.17, 1.16, and 1.10°C, respectively. The areas that showed urban warming less than 0.2°C are Chupungnyeong and Mokpo. On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37°C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60°C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77°C.”" [KIM Maeng-Ki, KIM Seonae 2011: Journal of Atmospheric Environment]
FWIW, the determination of the UHI impact was accomplished by only analyzing temperature data and population statistics. The authors apparently did not attempt to identify any non-human influences on climate.
Previous UHI and peer-reviewed postings. UHI temperature charts.
The Methane Gas Boogieman: NYTs Proves Again Why The Public Mistrusts 'MSM' Global Warming Reporting
The mainstream press has consistently misinformed and mislead the public regarding global warming science - the NYTs does it again with the never-ending, bogus methane gas scare
Read here. The New York Times, the essential U.S. propaganda instrument for left / liberal / progressive /Democrat policies, has for decades gleefully misrepresented actual climate science, plus wildly exaggerating the global warming fears expressed by scientists who rely on government funding for their current or future research.
The latest example of this was the NY Times's story about the feared methane gas "tipping point" that is being caused by the "accelerating" (Not!) global warming.
As the above chart indicates, the growth of methane gas concentration at surface level in the Arctic region has slowed considerably since the 1980s (blue trend line). This actual empirical evidence refutes the "climate science" from "experts" that the NYTs has reported for years. Contrary to what the NYTs tells its readers, the minor global warming has not caused a rapid growth of methane gas due to a melting of the Arctic frozen regions.
Using Excel, the trend growth lines for the different periods of methane levels were calculated for the above chart. The green trend line of the 2000s has a slightly less slope than the red trend line, which means that surface methane gas growth has slowed since the 80s, considerably.
Unfortunately, the vast legions of left-oriented readers that only get their climate science from the mainstream media remain immensely ignorant to the actual empirical evidence. Instead, outlets such as the Times and the Washington Post primarily publish biased "press release" science that has the sole purpose of misleading the public through fear of the future. Literally, this is the reason why progressives / leftists appear so incredibly stupid about man-made (Hardly!) global warming.
Go here for DIY science; plot methane measurements from around the world for yourself. Note that this site does not include 2011 data yet.
Previous greenhouse-gas posts. Additional greenhouse-gas charts.
America's '60 Minutes' Reports That Coral Reefs Are Endangered By Other Factors, Not Global Warming
The mainstream print media has been misinforming the public for years about man's affect on coral reefs - finally, '60 Minutes' tells truth that NYT & WAPO cover up
Read here. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. is one of few climate scientists who has long insisted that human influence on climate is much more than just the CO2 greenhouse gas. For Americans, a recent the '60 Minutes' TV episode on the devastation of coral reefs pretty much vindicates Pielke's view that any number of non-CO2 factors significantly influence the world's climate and habitats.
"Scientists say the world's reefs are being harmed by a complex combination of factors; including pollution, agricultural runoff, coastal development, and overfishing. It turns out fish are essential to the health of a reef...The reason this reef's doing so well, Fabian Pina believes, is that it's far from the mainland and well-protected...Maybe it’s because this ecosystem is being protected, it’s got a leg up on other ecosystems around the world that are being heavily fished and heavily impacted by pollution. So that makes it more resilient. That’s one of the theories that if we do what we can locally that these reefs have a better chance of being resilient to what’s happening globally."
"There is a very important message from this news report. The risks to coral reefs are dominated by local interference by humans on its ecosystem function. Such effects include local pollution (e.g. runoff from rivers and shorelines and from shipping; overfishing including the major predator species such as sharks)...Despite this short reference to global warming in the CBS report, the report is quite an important addition to the broadening out of environmental issues beyond the myopic focus on global warming. The contrast between reef health near Veracruz, Mexico and the Cuba Preserve should convincingly show objective readers that coral bleaching from global warming is clearly not the largest threat to the health of tropical coral reefs."
Now, if only the MSM print media would also start informing their readers about the truth of climate change - that would be the truly real climate fix.
Previous postings on coral reefs and species-endangerment.
Mann's Discredited Hockey Stick Takes Another Huge Hit: South America's Hot Medieval Temperatures
New research determines that South America did experience the Medieval Warming and temperatures were higher during MWP, contrary to Michael Mann's hockey stick "science"
Read here. As hundreds of scientists have discovered and published, the Medieval Warming (MWP) climate was global in nature, with temperatures that in many areas of the world were higher than today's temperatures.
Contrary to Michael Mann's now widely discredited hockey stick "science," the Neukom et al research found the MWP was a significant high temperature event in South America. This team of 18 highly qualified researchers came from 7 countries; they chose the best 22 climate proxies to reconstruct a thousand+ year temperature series. (click to enlarge chart)
"The international research team — composed of scientists from Argentina, Chile, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States — write that their summer temperature reconstruction suggests that “a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century,” which they describe as being temporally located “towards the end of the Medieval Climate Anomaly as concluded from Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions.” And as can be seen from the figure below, the warmest decade of this Medieval Warm Period was calculated by them to be AD 1079-1088, which as best as can be determined from their graph is about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period." [Neukom, R., Luterbacher, J., Villalba, R., Kuttel, M., Frank, D., Jones, P.D., Grosjean, M., Wanner, H., Aravena, J.-C., Black, D.E., Christie, D.A., D'Arrigo, R., Lara, A., Morales, M., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Srur, A., Urritia, R. and von Gunten, L. 2011: Climate Dynamics]
Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.
NASA Vs. IPCC: One Finds Global Warming, The Other Global Cooling - Which Is Correct?
Since 1998 the IPCC's HadCRUT reports global cooling - neither Nasa's GISS nor HadCRUT report "dangerous," nor "accelerating," nor "runaway," nor "tipping point" nor "irreversible" global warming
Unfortunately, almost every family has to suffer with the typical "useful idiot" family member during the holidays who has relied on MSNBC, ABC (Australia), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC or CNN for their climate information. Soooo...below is a Christmas stocking stuffer to be pulled out at the appropriate time when the family idiot starts spewing the mainstream media left / liberal / progressive / Democrat climate anti-science.
The IPCC's climate reports' gold-standard for global averages is the HadCRUT temperature dataset. Since the end of 1997, the HadCRUT global average shows an actual global cooling trend, not warming (-0.03C degrees/century). And since the end of 2000, this IPCC gold-standard has global cooling trend increasing to a -0.6C degree/century. (click on charts to enlarge)
The blue trend line is the IPCC's best-of-breed temperature dataset. Nasa's GISS dataset is represented by the red trend and NOAA's NCDC dataset by the green trend.
From the above, we can surmise the following:
1. Despite record setting human CO2 emissions over the past decade, they have not caused "dangerous," "accelerating," "runaway," "tipping point" or "irreversible" global warming
2. Per the IPCC gold-standard, a slight global cooling trend has developed since the end of 1997, and is more prominent since the end of 2000
3. Despite two large El Nino (extreme warming) events since 1997, the global temperatures per the IPCC gold-standard have trended down (through November 2011)
4. None of the IPCC's climate models predicted deceleration of global warming, let alone the actual global cooling
5. Whether it's the HadCRUT or GISS or NCDC temperature trends shown above, "accelerating" global warming is not reality - the opposite is reality
6. A worst case warming scenario based on recent trends (GISS or NCDC, not HadCRUT) might range from a +0.3C to +0.9C warming by year 2100 (trends are not predictions)
7. The climate sensitivity to CO2 atmospheric levels has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC
8. The hysterically claimed climate temperature "tipping point" is just that - hysteria
9. Natural climate and/or cyclical phenomenon has likely had a much greater influence on global temperatures than the immense human CO2 emissions
10. There is no "consensus" among HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC regarding global temperatures
With our listing of both the GISS and NCDC trends above (in addition to HadCRUT), one may wonder why they are not considered the IPCC's gold-standard. Well, regarding Nasa's GISS, a scientist from GISS has stated the following to an USA Today journalist:
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [HadCRUT] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
So, even the GISS folks hardly view their global temperature dataset as being the gold-standard, why should the IPCC?
Regarding the NOAA/NCDC temperature series, a recent analysis of their dataset revisions show a continuous monthly adjustment effort of historical temperatures that signify more a political agenda versus an impartial science objective. Amazingly, in the month of November 2011 alone, NCDC has published at least 4 different versions of their temperature dataset.
More importantly, the current NOAA chief has turned the science agency into a political and global warming hothouse, where facts and evidence are fabricated or subject to ludicrous revisionism for green political purposes. NOAA has become a science joke and the IPCC can ill afford hitching their wagon to another Green Mafia controlled outfit. Thus, no "gold-standard" for the NCDC temperature dataset.
That leaves the HadCRUT dataset as the gold-standard, which, by the way, finds the globe cooling, not warming - hmmm...did we say that already?
Merry Christmas!
The Gross Incompetence of Ben Santer & James Hansen: Their Non-Existent Global Warming
Ben Santer & James Hansen have long been declaring that global warming was accelerating from human CO2 - instead, the real facts reveals their incompetence
Santer and Hansen are two climate modelers that have been spectacularly wrong for so long that it's even painful for skeptics to witness. These two have been cluck-clucking forever about how CO2 levels were causing accelerating and irreversible global warming, with some climate "disruption" thrown in to scare the politicians and policymakers.
However, as the actual empirical evidence through November 2011 reveals, it is highly unlikely that either of these "scientists" could find his own ass with his hands. Even using Santer's own preferred 17-year analysis span (chart on left), it is clear that global warming is insignificant and likely moving towards a cooling phase.
The chart on right shows the climate model abomination that NASA and Hansen base their predictions on. The level of climate science incompetence is mind-boggling. (click on images to enlarge)
The only things Santer and Hansen have managed to succeed at is enriching themselves, at the expense of science and the taxpayers.
Other modern temperature charts.
New Chinese Research: More Proof That Mann's Hockey Stick Was Bogus Science
New research continues to break Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick - individual proxy studies invalidate Mann's claims
Michael Mann concocted the infamous hockey stick temperature chart in an attempt to overturn known, well established paleo-temperature history. His research was soon after discredited by expert statisticians when it was found that Mann had over-weighted a single American tree some 390 times in order to produce his desired result.
The hockey stick was so thoroughly discredited that the IPCC had to quit using it in their PR "science" literature.
Read here. Most individual climate proxy studies are unable to reconstruct a temperature series that resembles the infamous Mann research. The newest study unable to do so is the Liu et al peer-reviewed research.
(click on image to enlarge)
As the 2,485 year old tree ring chart depicts, modern warming is well within the natural variability that the Tibet Plateau has experienced. As with so many independent studies, the hockey stick statistical fabrication is non-repeatable - it solely exists in the bowels of the Climategate conspirators and their bizarre methodologies.
"A blockbuster Chinese study of Tibetan tree rings by Liu et al 2011 shows, with detail, that the modern era is a dog-standard normal climate when compared to the last 2,500 years. The temperature, the rate of change — it’s all been seen before. Nothing about the current period is “abnormal”...these climate cycles have nothing to with human civilization. Their team finds natural cycles of many different lengths are at work: 2-3 years, 100 years, 199 years, 800 years, and 1,324 years. The cold periods are associated with sunspot cycles...The results showed that extreme climatic events on the Plateau, such as the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Warming appeared synchronously with those in other places worldwide. The largest amplitude and rate of temperature change occurred during the Eastern Jin Event (343–425 AD), and not in the late 20th century..." [Yu Liu, QiuFang Cai, HuiMing Song, ZhiSheng An, Hans W. Linderholm 2011: Chinese Science Bulletin]
Previous climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical and modern temperature charts.
Impact of Democrats' Anti-Science: Purdue University Sacrifices Its Credibility To "Global Warming"
Left / Progressive politically correct anti-science claims more scientific scalps as Purdue researcher declares the walnut tree is endangered by global warming
Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.
"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."
For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."
He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?
Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.
At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.
Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.
Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.
The Embarrassing & Total Collapse of The IPCC's Antarctica Alarmist "Science"
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
"Science" By Lubchenco's NOAA: Fake Global Warming By Changing Historical Temperature Data
To promote the global warming scare, Jane Lubchenco's NOAA continuously changes past temperature records to create fake warming - on a monthly basis
When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama "science" research group is demonstrably fabricating new "global warming" every single month. [Ed: Updates here and here]
Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama's NOAA on a monthly basis:
As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.
We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama's NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:
"Absolutely Not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable."
With that said, it appears Lubchenco's NOAA is conducting a corrupt-like style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive 'Big Green' political hack is put in charge.
So what has been Jane's impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well...one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.
Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA's "scientists" as seen below.
The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.
Soooo...since Obama's "science" team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?
Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!
Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they can simply accomplish it on their PCs.
Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.
Special note: During the month of December 2011, NOAA / NCDC had at least 4 different 6 different versions of their global dataset available for download from its ftp site. Older versions are overwritten by the newer versions as they are uploaded by the agency (NCDC uses the same file name over and over apparently). NASA's GISS uploaded their first major revision of the year (December 2011) that affects all historical temperatures. The HadCRUT series has not had a major (entire historical dataset) revision this year from what we know.
Previous unequivocal-warming and unprecedented-warming postings. Additional fabricating-fake, modern and historical temperature charts.
Another Scary IPCC Climate Change Bomb Defused - Scientists Say Greenhouse Gas Fear Overblown
Scientists determine IPCC hysteria about global warming causing Arctic methane gas "tipping point" release to be unfounded - it's not happening
Read here. The UN's IPCC, 'Big Green' and Climategate scientists are all about alarming the public and policymakers, actual science be damned. In this case, the usual scare-culprits came up with a theory that CO2 warming of global will cause a super release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane that would lead to a "tipping point" and "runaway" global warming.
And as it almost always turns out with the IPCC and Big Green, their hysterical climate change predictions are found to be meritless. The research team of Dmitrenko et al. pretty much defused this blown out of proportion prediction, adding to the incredibly long list of failed IPCC fear mongering prognostications.
"So despite a warming Arctic, the feared large methane release has not been manifest. Which fits very nicely into the new results from Dmitrenko and colleagues. They find that the methane observed to be bubbling up from the Arctic seafloor off the coast of Siberia to be the ongoing and long-term response to the flooding of the seabed there that occurred some 8,000 years ago and not a response to recent warming in the region...Dmitrenko et al. write: The CH4 [methane] supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes...The new Dmitrenko result pretty much throws cold water on the “shocking” news that has been making its way through the global media in recent days that reports from a recent survey of the Siberian Arctic Shelf indicate that vast quantities of methane are bubbling to the surface of the ocean and that this is “stok[ing] new global warming fears.” [Igor A. Dmitrenko, Sergey A. Kirillov, L. Bruno Tremblay, Heidemarie Kassens, Oleg A. Anisimov, Sergey A. Lavrov, Sergey O. Razumov, Mikhail N. Grigoriev 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Previous greenhouse-gas, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.
IPCC's Claim That Antarctica's Ice Sheets Are Melting Due To Global Warming Is Found To Be Fraudulent
IPCC science on Antarctica can't withstand scrutiny of experts and technology - Antarctica's polar ice caps are not melting and can't
Recently, we wrote of the bogus science by Josefino Comiso, an IPCC lead author, that attempted to fabricate warming across the Antarctica continent. Either due to extremely sloppy science, or massive stupidity or science corruption, Comiso and his cohorts "found" Antarctica warming and that its polar ice caps were at risk to melting.
Fortunately for the world, the study by the IPCC's Comiso was thoroughly trashed by experts within the peer-reviewed community. That study has now joined Al Gore's discredited climate science in the ash heap of history.
With that said, what is the actual temperature situation across the Antarctica continent? Well, the above map provides some insight to actual temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
The Antarctica area between the two green circles represents the polar area measured by the state-of-the-art NASA satellite. Since 1978, that entire area has been slightly cooling, not warming, as shown in this previous chart. (The satellite is unable to take measurements for the area within the inner green circle - the doughnut hole area.)
There indeed has been some slight warming in the area of the Antarctica Peninsula but the huge mass of ice sheets actually reside in East and West Antarctica, which measurements show to be cooling.
As can be seen, the temperatures (listed by each red circle) during both the warmest and coldest months (January and July) are well below freezing temperatures. The major ice sheets exist in an interior environment where melting can't occur presently; and, even a future warming of 10 degrees won't cause any melting.
Simply stated, West and East Antarctica are just too freaking cold for any melting to happen, with the exception of coastal areas that already are affected by moderate maritime temperatures.
Despite this actual empirical evidence, the fraud-centric IPCC and its associated scientists still make claims that Antarctica is warming and its gigantic ice caps will soon melt, thus flooding the world. These are flat-out false claims designed to only promote hysteria.
Note: The red circles on the map represent either manned research stations or automatic weather stations. The three temperatures listed for each circle include the average January, the average July and the average annual temperature. For links to average temperature data for each site, go to: Download Antarctica Stations Temps
The Global Warming Debate Is Over: 'New Scientist' Magazine Admits Modern Temperatures Are Not Unprecedented
Global Warming (AGW) proponents finally admit defeat? They now say modern warming is just a fraction of past natural warming
Read here. The publication New Scientist has been at the forefront of global warming and climate change hysteria. After years of promoting climate model quackery and publicizing the ludicrous scare predictions from models, the editors must have mainlined truth serum as they publish actual empirical evidence. Or, maybe they're getting tired of pushing fabricated alarmist B.S., eh?
As proof, this adjacent chart was published by the New Scientist and it clearly shows that modern "unprecedented" global warming is no such thing.
If the New Scientist is now in the business of promoting truth and needs a source of additional empirical evidence charts, they certainly can use the many charts found here and here.
You say, "what the heck is going on here?" Well...after the miserable defeats at Durban, Cancun and Copenhagen, and in combination with the continuing Climategate2.0 exposure of the IPCC's fraudulent science, the global warming debate may be coming to an end, fitfully.
Maybe a clear sign of AGW proponents begging for mercy is their new embracement of actual empirical evidence regarding the climate. Enjoy while it lasts.
New Scientist image source url
IPCC Scientist Responsible For Bogus Antarctica Warming Study Suppresses His Critics' Research
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study
Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.
As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.
How about this interesting example?
Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.
"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."
The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.
"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though. Crack cocaine for advocates. A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent. Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."
In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)
Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?
Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.
99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.
Categories
- 1 Peer-Reviewed Studies
- ? Are Coral Reefs Dying/Endangered
- ? Are Corporations Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
- ? Are Current Temperatures Unequivocal
- ? Are Global Temperatures Accelerating
- ? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear
- ? Are Lefties/Elites/Libs Destroying/Ignoring Empirical Science
- ? Are Leftists/Elites/Libs Violent, Repressive, Deceitful, Corrupt, Stupid
- ? Are Modern Temperatures Unprecedented
- ? Are Oceans Becoming Acidic
- ? Are Oceans Rising
- ? Are Oceans Warming
- ? Are Polar Bears At Risk
- ? Are Severe Weather Events Due To Global Warming
- ? Are Wealthy Investors Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
- ? Can CO2-Based Energy Be Easily Replaced
- ? Can Global Temperatures Be Reduced or Controlled
- ? Can Scientists Predict Climate Results
- ? Is China A Green Paradise
- ?Does the public accept/reject alarmism
- Al Gore/Env Fanaticism/Alarmism/Religion/Hysteria
- Big-Govt Propaganda/Deceit/Stupidity
- Cancun/Copenhagen/Durban Global Warming Fiascoes
- Cap & Trade/Carbon Offsets/Carbon Taxes
- Climate History
- Climate Lies, climate fraud, Climategate
- Climate Models
- Developing Nations/Impoverished Peoples/Poverty
- Electric/Hybrid Autos/Other Trnspt.
- Failed Predictions: Model/Human
- Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends
- Global Warming: Anti-Jobs, Anti-Growth, Anti-Prosperity
- Global Warming: Atmos./Ocean Oscillations/Currents
- Global Warming: BEST
- Global Warming: Black Carbon/Soot/Aerosols
- Global Warming: Charts/Images/PDFs/EmbedVids
- Global Warming: Education/Schools
- Global Warming: Evidence-Facts Vs. CO2-AGW
- Global Warming: Geoengineering
- Global Warming: Jobs/Profits/Taxes/Reparations
- Global Warming: Kyoto/Regulations/Sustainability
- Global Warming: Negative/Positive Feedback
- Global Warming: Non-CO2 Climate Change Causes
- Global Warming: Politics/Correctness/Hypocrisy/Corruption
- Global Warming: Science Corruption/Censorship/Deceit
- Global Warming: Science Error/Speculation/Fiction
- Global Warming: Science Fact/Evidence
- Global Warming: Sun/Solar/Cosmic/Orbital/Oscillations/Cycles
- Global Warming: Urban Heat Island Bias
- Greehouse Gases: CO2/Methane/Water Vapor
- Green Groups/Bureaucrats/Enviro-Nazis/Thugs
- Harm To Science Credibility/Reputation
- Hockey-Stick Science, Empirical Bogosity
- Hysteria: Climate Tipping Points, Alarmist Predictions
- Hysteria: Diseases/Starvation/Death/Health Impact
- Hysteria: Drought/Flood/Crop Failures/Forest Fires
- Hysteria: Earthquakes/Tsunamis/Volcanoes
- Hysteria: Greenland/Polar/Glaciers/Sea Ice
- Hysteria: Heat Wave/Cold Wave
- Hysteria: Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons/Tornados
- Hysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Tundra/Permafrost
- Hysteria: Rain/Snow/Hail/Fog/Other Weather
- Hysteria: Rain/Snow/Wind/Hail/Fog/Other Weather
- Hysteria: Sand/Dust Storms
- Hysteria: Seas Rising/Acidic Oceans/Ocean Circ
- Hysteria: Species Endangerment/Extinction
- Hysteria: War/Conflicts/Terrorism
- Mainsteam Media Bias/Distortion/Deceit/Stupidity
- Non Climate Issue: Immigration
- Non Climate Issue: Internet censorship
- Non-Climate Issue: Public Employees/Unions
- Nuclear Energy
- Politics: Presidential Candidates
- Rare Earth
- Renewables: Algae/Wood/Cellulosic
- Renewables: Bio-Diesel/Ethanol
- Renewables: Energy Fraud/Scam/Failure/Prob.
- Renewables: Energy Independence
- Renewables: Green Jobs
- Renewables: Solar/Wind
- Republicans: Memo To
- Science / Academia Journals Bias/Distortion
- Technology Solutions: CO2 Reduction
- Temp Readings: Balloons/Buoys/Satellite/Surface/Urban/Rural
- Temp Readings: Ice Core/Other Proxy Data
- UN-IPCC/World Govt
- Videos/Podcasts
