This is a compilation of recent science/policy headlines regarding climate, energy, environment, medical, health and other topics of science interest. Each headline is clickable, linking to the original source article. Currently, there are an approximate 1,500 science headlines.
Use 'Ctrl F' in your browser and then search for specific words across all the headlines. At the moment, for example, if the word 'arctic' is used as the search term, 45 occurrences are highlighted in headlines by the browser.
This single page compilation is currently updated every 7 to 10 days.
A more frequent updating of headlines can be found at this page; but it only includes 50 headlines at once (thus 'Ctrl F' searches are limited to just those 50 on a displayed page).
This list is updated every 1-3 days. The newest headlines are eventually copied over to the large, single page compilation of headlines.
Both of the above described compilation/list page links are smart phone and tablet browser-friendly.
Extreme weather incidents - i.e. disastrous flooding from extreme precipitation - has always existed ... and well before the introduction of human industrial/consumer CO2 emissions ... the name Noah rings a bell, yes?
Much research has been done on determining the connection between solar activity and weather/climate conditions.
Studies investigating the relationship between the sun and flooding continue to be pursued. The newest research examined solar forcing and the floods of central Europe using river discharge data and varved sediments.
The peer-reviewed findings:
The three researchers discovered that flood frequency in both records is significantly correlated to changes in two types of solar activity," namely, (1) "the solar Schwabe cycle" and (2) "multi-centennial oscillations." And they thus further conclude that (3) "the unexpected direct response of variations in River Ammer flood frequency to changes in solar activity might suggest that the solar top-down mechanism is of particular relevance for hydroclimate extremes.
This study determined that flooding frequency over 5,500 years was tied to solar activity across inter-annual and multi-centennial timescales.
Clearly, CO2 emissions and other human influences are not a prerequisite for extreme precipitation and the resulting flood disasters.
The consensus alarmist-scientist community has again been discomforted with new empirical evidence that confirms the findings of past research done by scientists skeptical of human-caused catastrophic global warming.
The new study, officially published in a publication from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows:
"....that water conserved by plants under high CO2 conditions compensates for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, retaining more water on land than predicted in commonly used drought assessments....the implications of plants needing less water with more CO2 in the environment changes assumptions of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and plant growth..."New satellite observations and improvements in our understanding hydrological cycle have led to significant advances in our ability to model changes in soil moisture," said Randerson. "Unfortunately, using proxy estimates of drought stress can give us misleading results because they ignore well-established principles from plant physiology."."
"Recent studies have estimated that more than 70 percent of our planet will experience more drought as carbon dioxide levels quadruple from pre-industrial levels over about the next 100 years. But when researchers account for changes in plants' water needs, this falls to 37 percent, with bigger differences concentrated in certain regions."
You read that right. The "consensus" scientists were forced to cut almost in half climate models' simulated drought impact on the world's plant life when the actual empirical evidence was properly analyzed.
Of course, despite the contrary findings of this study, the article reminds readers that hypothetical fearmongering from computer simulations is still acceptable, such as:
"Is this good news for climate change? Although the drying may be less extreme than in some current estimates, droughts will certainly increase, researchers said, and other aspects of climate change could have severe effects on vegetation."
It would seem, despite the extreme denial of most anti-CO2 activists and UN bureaucrats, that the climate has always changed, frequently making dramatic shifts.
Even producing big shifts prior to the major morphing to a greenhouse gas emitting industrial/consumer society.
Despite the immense treasure of climate change empirical and anecdotal evidence of time past compiled by dedicated researchers, scientists are still conducting new research to delineate the scope and breadth of past changes.
This latest research, done by a group of European scientists, focused on the Northern Hemisphere's hydroclimatology responses to temperature change over 12 centuries. Their findings included:
"...report that (1,2) "proxy evidence does not support the tendency in simulations for wet regions to become wetter and dry regions drier in a warmer climate," that (3) their "hydroclimate reconstruction does not support a general unprecedented intensification of the hydrological cycle in the twentieth century, associated with both more extreme wet and dry conditions, as simulated by an ensemble of models," and that (4) "this finding is in line with recent analyses of instrumental data reporting limited evidence for an intensification of wet and dry anomalies under current global warming,"." Nature 532: 10.1038/nature17418.
In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).
Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions - and Exxon - are not to blame.
Prior articles on historical climate change.
MIT informs us that the "experts" are even clueless as to how much oil is being globally stored.
Yet, supposedly, the experts know how much fossil fuel is burned each year by each country, as well as supposedly knowing how many metric tonnes of CO2 emissions are being emitted to atmosphere.
Color it highly doubtful.
One thinks that the "settled" science of fossil fuel global warming - i.e. climate change - is based on a "huge amount of guesswork" and is actually very unsettled.
The prediction failures regarding the Arctic polar region being ice-free, and the continuing good health and resilient, growing population of polar bears, just really grates on some science "journalists."
"Up in the Arctic, things are getting slushy. But some polar bears are refusing to change their ways. Instead of compromising on where they spend their time, they’re clinging to the icy habitats they’ve always loved. As those habitats keep shrinking, though, the bears will eventually find things too crowded and uncomfortable to ignore."
Buuuuut....it would seem those stubborn bears just keep ignoring their human scientific betters whom keep predicting the demise of polar bear species.
“Polar bears are sticking to using the same type of habitat conditions even while sea ice disappears,” says lead author Ryan Wilson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They still love regions with shallow water, a high but variable concentration of sea ice, and not much land-bound ice. He thinks that’s because—for now—they can still eat....So these polar bears seem to be doing fine without changing their habits."
Buuuuut....just wait until next season warns the Discover Magazine's species helicopter-parent nanny.
"As the iciest spots continue to shrink, more animals will have to either crowd into them or move onto solid land during the summer. They can’t stay stuck in their ways forever. These carefree polar bears will soon experience the same negative effects that their neighbors have, Wilson says: “It’s likely only a matter of time.”
Prior species-extinction articles.
For years they predicted (i.e. carelessly speculated) that a warming climate would increase the incidence of the nasty dengue fever disease.
But now researchers are reporting that the incidence of the disease could actually be reduced with warming climate change.
“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,” said Dr Harley, an epidemiology researcher at the ANU Research School of Population Health. ... The findings are also relevant to other mosquito-borne viruses including Zika because the mosquitoes that carry dengue also transmit the Zika virus. ... “There is significant concern in countries on the margin of the tropical areas where dengue is mainly found, that with global warming dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses such as Zika will encroach and become common,” Dr Harley said. ... “Previous projections have suggested that climate change will increase transmission of mosquito-borne diseases globally. ... “Our work, using a mathematical model based on Queensland conditions, suggests that dengue transmission might decrease with greater warming.”
Naturally, this is good news that all global warming alarmists should embrace, with the exception of a single caveat regarding the study that should give pause. This latest flip-flop was based on a computer model, which is quite simply, nothing but simulated research using limited empirical evidence.
Partisan media can influence viewers to reject facts (this from a media outlet pushing catastrophic global warming propaganda)
Is it junk science?; biased?; flim-flam?; fraudulent?; simply bad?; lazy?; fishy science?; or just normal "whatever" science.
The daily scientific crapola appears to exist way beyond the narrow domain of orthodoxy climate science, unfortunately.
"We all know bad papers are out there. When you read them, you’re left scratching your head and wondering, “How on earth did these pass peer-review?” Worse still, there are “ugly” science articles, where the scientific method goes by the wayside and data are cherry-picked, misinterpreted or manipulated to justify a political or ideological agenda or to undermine science that interferes with that agenda.
Robeck et al. (2015) is a recent example of ugly science. The authors (three of whom work for SeaWorld, one for the Minnesota Zoo) compared survivorship and longevity of orcas in captivity versus the wild. They stated that “the estimated ages assigned to [free-ranging killer whales]…were inaccurate” and “Our analysis supports a proposed longevity of between 60 and 70 years for females and 50 and 60 years for males…substantially less than the longevity of 80-90 years for females and 60-70 years for males…previously suggested” (p. 1066, emphasis added). This paper also dismissed decades of life history table analyses that have long been accepted within the scientific community, stating that they were of “limited value” (p. 1059).
With these conclusions, Robeck et al. effectively tossed 43 years of research by a number of respected orca biologists under the bus."
As has often been the case, official climate science is now agreeing with what skeptics identified several years ago: Antarctica is not warming.
The prestigious science consensus journal Nature has published a new peer-reviewed study that counters what that journal has been reporting about Antarctica for at least the last decade.
This should not come as a surprise to the observant.
The global warming doomsday scientists have relied on a compliant mainstream media to claim that their opinions represent the supposed 97% of settled science - an indisputable "consensus" that should not be debated. But, as in almost every scientific endeavor, the science is never, ever settled.
Yet the climate science orthodoxy continues to push the catastrophic scenario that Earth's major coastal and island regions will be submerged due to the melting of the polar ice sheets found in Antarctica. Unfortunately for the consensus alarmism, this new study indicates Antarctica's canary in the global warming fearmongering-fable has actually been cooling over the last 20 years, not warming (see chart).
Per an article on the study:
"Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature. The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected."
And what do they say next, after being severely humiliated with the empirical evidence that skeptics rely on? Well.....the consensus doomsday scientists bounce right back with their orthodoxy beliefs, based on the always wrong climate model computer simulations.
"Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long-term warming because of man-made climate change...“Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late-20th-century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,” the Turner research concluded."
Previous polar and sea ice articles.
It is indisputable that significant climate change is a never ending condition: Earth's climate, due to internal and external forces, is inconstant and variable across regions.
Chinese researchers determined that non-CO2 forcings are the principal causes of majors swings in a climate's temperature, be it cooling and warming. They also determined that the modern 20th century warming, which doomsday alarmists attribute solely to the trace gas CO2, is well below the confirmed warming that took place in earlier, pre-industrial periods.
Their research is based on the empirical evidence of a reconstructed temperature dataset using tree rings from China's northwestern Sichuan Plateau. This new dataset confirms what the multitude of previous studies have determined - significant climate changes are absolutely natural.
This study's conclusions:
"Seven major cold periods and three major warm periods were identified from this reconstruction, which might be linked with volcanic and solar activities. The Little Ice Age (LIA) climate can also be well represented and clearly end with climatic amelioration at the end of the 19th century. The 18th and 20th centuries were warm with less extreme cold years, while the 17th and 19th century were cold with more extreme cold years. Moreover, the 20th century rapid warming was not obvious in our RLST reconstruction, which implies that mean maximum temperature, as a unique temperature indicator, might play an important and different role in global change. Overall, the RLST variability in the NWSP might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing"
Prior climate history articles.
Per a previous analysis of rising seas surrounding Pacific islands, the satellite measurements indicate that seas are rising but at a very meager rate. The current sea rise rate is significantly below what consensus climate science alarmists have predicted.
So, how do the doomsday claims that tropical islands are being lost to "rapidly" rising seas compare to reality?
Scientific peer-reviewed research can answer that question: The claims are bogus.
A new study examined the Jaluit Atoll of the Marshall Islands.
"...the pair of New Zealand researchers set out to examine historical changes in 87 islands found within the Jaluit Atoll...over the period 1945-2010. During this time, the islands were subjected to ongoing sea level rise and the passage of a notable typhoon...which caused severe damage with its >100 knot winds and abnormal wave heights...caused a decrease in total island land area of approximately five percent, yet Ford and Kench write that “despite [this] significant typhoon-driven erosion and a relaxation period coincident with local sea-level rise, [the] islands have persisted and grown.” Between 1976 and 2006, for example, 73 out of the 87 islands increased in size, and by 2010, the total landmass of the islands had exceeded the pre-typhoon area by nearly 4 percent."
Simply stated, this study again confirms that doomsday prognostications based on climate model simulations have no relation to the actual Pacific island/atoll reality during periods of sea rise.
Science research (and implementation) nowadays produces all sorts of headlines that are of significant interest to the public and policymakers.
But, as seems to be the case, the natural processes of climate change, global warming and global cooling appear to bring the quack scientists with truly quack theories out of the ivy towers in search of more research funding.
Case in point: the Ohio State researchers who claim that a warmer climate produces more violence - this "new" theory that hotter temperatures cause more aggression has been easily debunked before (and debunking this theory is kinda like shooting politically correct fish in a barrel).
For an abundance of similar headlines that reflect violence across a wide range of climates, go here.
These most recent headlines firmly establish that aggressive violence is likely more a result of demographics (i.e. societal, cultural and religious backgrounds) than climate. In other words, you can take someone out a violent area with a very warm climate and nothing basically changes - well.....other than civilization just gets more violence in the cooler climate, obviously.
As we all know, Obama's Paris climate change treaty will stop global warming and climate change in their tracks - rising sea levels too!
With all that checked off his 'bucket' list....
Stephen Hawking has gained a less than stellar reputation for predicting doomsday catastrophes multiple times. Seems his non-scientific predictions are classic clickbait catnip for mainstream media publications and net tabloids.
And then there is his latest doomsday scenario of human CO2 emission causing global warming so hot that humanity on Earth is wiped out by a Venus-like climate of 250 degrees. Unfortunately for Hawking, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that Earth becoming Venus is such an absurdity that even the fear-mongers at the IPCC won't support this vaporfear.
Why is Hawking's Venus prediction so way out there in the twilight zone of black holes? Just look at the adjacent chart.
Plotted are the absolute temperatures for the tropical oceans and the atmosphere above the tropical oceans, as of April 2016 (purple columns). If the oceans are going to be boiled-off by Venus atmospheric temperature levels, then we are a very long way from that happening.
But what about Earth's temperatures a 100 years from now, due to that "runaway" warming Hawking insinuates that we suffer from?
Well, based on the linear trend of temperatures since the satellite measurement age began in 1979, the expected tropical temperatures for April 2116 (yellow columns on chart) will barely budge up - ahem, 250 degrees is not in the cards. Earth's actual experience with Hawking's modern "runaway" warming clearly indicates that we can't get there (250 degrees) from here (25.3°, -4.2°, -24.2°).
And by the time the next 100 years passes, humanity will no longer be using fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. Technology will advance far enough during that time to make the issue of runaway warming or climate change tipping points from human greenhouse gas emissions moot historical footnotes.
Note: Calculated rolling absolute temps using 12-month averages of anomalies and then adding an average absolute temp to the anomalies. Absolute average temp used for HadSST, 24.4C; absolute average temp for UAH lower troposphere -5.0C; absolute average temp for mid-troposphere, -25.0C. Excel used to calculate averages and plot column chart. Venus surface, lower and mid-troposphere temperatures are vastly hotter than 250 degrees that Hawking alluded to.
As skeptics of catastrophic global warming have long advised, climate change is primarily a result of natural forces that are not dependent on anthropogenic influences.
An example of this earthly natural climate change is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which had serious repercussions for many, including the Mongol invaders who terrorized Europe.
Researchers now believe that the underlying cause of the mysterious retreat by the Mongol invading forces of Hungary, during 1462 AD, was the bad weather - likely induced by the natural climate change associated with the LIA onset. Turns out the bad weather of climate change significantly reduced food and nutrition for the Horde's steeds and made for a very muddy terrain to battle on.
And then there is the new research from another planet in the solar system that proves natural climate change is not only a terrestrial phenomenon.
Research derived from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has established that the Mars ice age is in the process of ending due to a natural global warming for that planet.
In combination, these two research efforts add to the massive amount of scientific evidence that climate change is always occurring; and, most definitely does not require human consumer/industrial greenhouse gases to produce significant impacts on planetary environments and those associated civilizations.
Plant life across the world has improved and increased profoundly, everywhere, due to the higher levels of atmospheric CO2, in combination with the modest global warming since the Little Ice Age.
The most recent study confirming this benefit to the biosphere pinpoints exceptional growth and health for older forests in the Southern Hemisphere - specifically, the Cordilleras region of southern Chile.
Per the study:
"Urrutia-Jalabert et al. performed a series of analyses on tree ring cores they obtained from long-lived Fitzroya cupressoides stands, which they say “may be the slowest-growing and longest-lived high biomass forest stands in the world.” ... the authors write “the sustained positive trend in tree growth is striking in this old stand, suggesting that the giant trees in this forest have been accumulating biomass at a faster rate since the beginning of the [20th] century.” And coupling that finding with the 32 percent increase in water use efficiency over the same time period, Urrutia-Jalabert et al. conclude the trees “are actually responding to environmental change.” ... the researchers state “we believe that this increasing growth trend…has likely been driven by some combination of CO2 and/or surface radiation increases,” adding that “pronounced changes in CO2 have occurred in parallel with changes in climate, making it difficult to distinguish between both effects.”"
As is often the case, scientific research again confirms that the dogmatic consensus climate science, such as the "expert" prediction that the globe's biosphere would suffer great harm from anthropogenic CO2, has proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Additional peer-reviewed articles.
As multiple recent articles have documented, wind energy, in the form of wind farms, has been plagued with multiple serious issues. When compiling the list of issues, it demonstrates that wind power's future as a sustainable renewable energy resource is not so bright.
Adding to the negative issue impacts of wind energy is a new study out of Scotland that established an 80% reduction of the EU protected golden plover bird species in the vicinity of a wind farm.
Per the inconvenient study:
"Lead researcher Dr Alex Sansom said: 'Golden plovers breed in open landscapes and it is likely that the presence of wind turbines in these areas leads to birds avoiding areas around the turbines. This study shows that such displacement may cause large declines in bird numbers within wind farms ...'It will be important to examine whether these effects are maintained over the longer term at this site, and we should also use these detailed studies to examine the effects of wind farms on other bird species.'"
The vast majority of paleo-climate studies have been unequivocal - there are multiple past periods of warmer than current temperatures when low atmospheric CO2 levels existed. Empirical evidence, such as the Greenland ice cores, point to three specific Holocene periods of ancient historical warming: the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval eras.
A new research study focusing on the U.S. Western area provides unimpeachable scientific data confirming warmer the temperatures that the previous studies have found.
"In a recent treeline study from central Colorado, Carrara and McGeehin (2015) employed a combination of 23 radiocarbon ages and annual ring counts from 18 Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) remnants found above the local present-day limits of such trees near the Continental Divide in central Colorado, which work revealed that the majority of the tree remnants "were established above the present-day limit of bristlecone pine from prior to 2700 cal. years BP to no later than about 1200 cal. years BP." ... "...has also been found and described in a number of other studies cited by Carrara and McGeehin, namely, those of LaMarche and Mooney (1967), LaMarche and Mooney (1972), LaMarche (1973), Petersen and Mehringer (1976), Scuderi (1987), Carrara et al. (1992), Fall (1997), Lloyd and Graumlich (1997), Doerner (2007), Benedict et al. (2008), Carrara (2011), Madole (2012), Lee and Benedict (2012), Lee et al. (2014) and Morgan et al. (2014)." ..."Clearly, therefore, there exists a wealth of real-world data from the western United States that testifies of the fact that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about that region's current mean yearly maximum and minimum temperatures...".
This should come as no surprise since both empirical and anecdotal evidence establish that natural climate change, with wide variation and extremes, has been a constant for humanity since the beginning.
Take home global warming (and cooling) message: the climate is not stable and never will be - natural climate change rules.
Additional climate-history articles.
As this article discusses, Elon Musk is proving that having a 'green' business model is literally not sustainable without massive subsidies from the government.
"Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment...Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive...Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive."
As Musk and his ilk continue to line their pockets with "green" from average taxpayers, it is important to remember that it is the Democrat and Republican establishment types who have encouraged and allowed this to happen.
And, also remember it's the the mainstream media and the climate alarmist science community that created these green-crony hucksters sucksters - they too should be held accountable for what has happened. Simply, it is their constant hype of catastrophic alarmism that elected officials were able to hide behind as billions of taxpayer dollars were being sucked into non-viable commercial solutions instead of the basic research that is needed to pursue superior green technologies.
This article discusses the severe forest fire that is currently happening in the Fort McMurray area of Canada, which the article's author takes issue with those claiming the fire is due to climate change from human activities - i.e. human CO2 emissions, etc.
Claims that specific fires (and forest and wildfires overall) are due to human greenhouse gases have routinely been made since the 1988 testimony of NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, predicted that rapid and accelerating warming from GHG emissions would cause more severe and frequent weather events.
As a result of this Congressional testimony, the "consensus" climate experts then predicted that the "dangerous" human-caused warming would produce a significant trend increase of wildfires, especially in the northern hemisphere's boreal forests.
Although the globe has warmed since 1988 (not rapid, nor accelerating, see here and here), the trend for Canadian boreal forest fires has been the opposite of that predicted over the 27 years after the Hansen 1988 testimony.
The adjacent charts plots the number of Canadian forest fires and hectares burned. Clearly, the trends are declining, which suggests an inverse relationship with the level of atmospheric CO2 (ppm CO2 is the chart's right axis).
Despite those climate "experts" failed prognostications, the recent irrefutable empirical evidence indicates that the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions are producing a greener and healthier biosphere, which actually may be more resistant to wildfires.
Additional forest fire articles of the past [tip: then use browser Cntrl-F function to do search on word 'forest' to find forest fire news articles on that page].
Note: Canadian forest fire statistics source; Excel used to plot annual fire statistics and linear trends.
The unsubstantiated claim has been that human CO2-induced climate change was (and is) producing dramatic changes in precipitation levels across the world.
But is it true?
A research effort was undertaken to determine if indeed the evidence backed up the alarmist non-empirical claims/predictions.
The study's findings:
"...report that "most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change," noting that "global changes in precipitation over the Earth's land mass excluding Antarctica relative to 1961-90 were estimated to be: -1.2±1.7, 2.6±2.5 and -5.4±8.1 percent per century for the periods 1850-2000, 1900-2000 and 1950-2000, respectively." ... "stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends," ... "deserts/jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns." ... "reasonable to conclude that some caution is warranted about claiming that large changes to global precipitation have occurred during the last 150 years."
Simply put, the exaggerated climate change claims of major disruption to rainfall/snow patterns are just that, exaggerations sans any empirical evidence. The evidence-based science is clear: Over the last 150 years, precipitation trends remain within normal variability.
Earlier this year, a comparison was done using the GISS global temperature observations dataset versus an earlier version of the NASA/GISS computer climate model output, as of 2015 year-end. That comparison can be viewed here.
It is now 4 months later with the current powerful El Niño producing some very high global temperature averages.
So, how does the GISS dataset, as of March 31, 2016, compare against a newer climate model, specifically, the IPCC's modern CMIP5 model using the supposed business-as-usual greenhouse gas scenario (RCP8.5)?
The adjacent chart tells the story, but we add some more content below:
Speaking of the current El Niño (and prior El Niños and La Niñas): "What goes up up must.....?"
Whether its the old NASA computer model simulations or the newer variety of IPCC climate models, Hansen's 1988 prediction of rapidly accelerating and dangerous global warming from human CO2, and other greenhouse gases, has done poorly in comparison to actual observed temps.
Although the recent spike in global temperatures from the current El Niño may provide some AGW alarmist bragging rights ("see, that clock is accurate"), it is highly probable the recent 6-month surge is a very temporary spike, entirely due to the natural ENSO phenomenon that climate models are incapable of predicting.
In fact, when viewing the future projections from the CMIP5 model, one sees the exact same pattern as above - a monotonous upward saw-tooth pattern of small ups and downs, completely unlike the chaotic conditions of real-world climate that is produced by all the conflicting natural feedback forces.
And the reversal from the current temp spike could well lead to another 'Pause' in any significant warming. If that happens, it will build on the growing consensus that climate models can't accurately predict squat, and should not be relied upon by policymakers for any reason - good for research but really terrible for reality-based policy.
Note: James Hansen's 1988 testimony took place in June 1998; this comparison used January 1988 as the starting point. The RCP8.5 scenario is considered by the majority of scientists seeking global warming research grants as the business-as-usual scenario. The climate model anomaly output for the CMIP5 RCP8.5 was adjusted to match the January 1988 anomaly for the NASA/GISS global dataset. Both the RCP8.5 and GISS dataset anomalies used in above chart were calculated by KNMI using the 1981-2010 span as the baseline. Both the model and observed datasets were downloaded after the baseline was chosen. Excel was used to plot chart and calculate all figures, including the linear trends and 3-year moving averages.
"The record of populist predictions about the evils of modern society is terrible. The most alarming predictions, which garner the most headlines and have the most impact on public policy, never come to pass. Perennial pessimism is nothing but paranoid neurosis. ... "The prophets of doom wish they would be quietly forgotten, and for the most part they have been. But they shouldn’t be, when the very same fearmongers remain in positions of influence or power."
Speaking of "prophets of doom," below is a short review of Marc Morano's new investigative documentary.
Last night was the movie theater premier of Climate Hustle. A result of a low budget, it is surprisingly well put together, entertaining and informative. The funniest part of of the film for the audience appeared to be the sequence of the UK's Prince Charles repeating his elitist blather of nonsensical doomsday prophecies, year after year.
My only criticism of the film was at the very end when a panel discussion takes place. The panel included Sarah Palin, who came across as rather inarticulate (my wife confirmed that opinion). Not sure what the thought process could have been as far as including Palin in the film - she is not known at all as a knowledgeable spokesperson for the climate-doomsday skepticism viewpoint. Plus, her reputation as a right-wing, partisan flamethrower adds an unwanted political patina that blemishes the documentary's credibility, needlessly.
Best part of the ending panel discussion was the interview with "scientist" Bill Nye that exposes the authoritarian, pro-censorship and anti-science sentiments of liberal, green Democrats. Morano should seriously consider deleting the entire panel discussion from the film with the exception of his revealing interview with Nye.
Regardless of the less than satisfactory ending, the capacity audience appeared to appreciate and enjoy the movie.
Did I say "capacity"? Indeed, on a very nice spring climate weather Monday night that had the huge theater complex with multiple screens being rather sparse of movie attendees, there were very few open seats left for the Climate Hustle experience - I was stunned.
A paying audience's craving for this film's message would suggest that many Americans are not yet brain-dead doomsday zombies. Definitely go see when the opportunity arises again.
Personally, I'm planning on buying tickets for the Marc Morano's 'Climate Hustle' movie release in theaters tomorrow, Monday May 2. Those plans were happening regardless of Bill Nye.
But with his attempt at lefty censorship, it certainly may cause others to be curious enough about Morano's film that it pushes them to the point of attending. Or, it may incite others just to buy tickets to spite Nye and his green crony-welfare Democrat pro-censorship friends.
Of course, due to his own self-promotion at seeking the limelight, it's not a surprise Bill Nye provided the movie with some free PR. The man has certainly placed himself in the headlines quite a lot lately, which has been recorded quite frequently on our 'Headlines Only' page.
(Note: To find the 'Nye' headlines, use your Cntrl-F browser function and do a search for 'Nye' on this page.)
Climate change and global warming scientists seeking grants for continuing research use computer model simulations to fabricate justify why they need more budget monies from the government - it is a constant doomsday whining that inflicts (and impacts) the entire science community.
The latest simulated calamity that is being tossed around as a doomsday scenario has the oceans being depleted of oxygen because of CO2, thus making marine life impossible.
As with all computer climate simulations, this is junk science that policymakers and the public have no need for. It's a disaster-distraction used to pretend that "scientists", with just a little more money (but always turns out being a whole lot more), will be able to quantify doomsday from natural climate reality - not very likely.
“Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it’s been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change."
Objectively, this certainly appears to be just another case of ever money-desperate climate science sucking the oxygen out of all other scientific endeavors.
Simply stated, this predicted dangerous "acidification" is hypothesized to make the waters uninhabitable for most marine life.
And for this to become a reality, it means that a demonstrable and consistent decline in sea/ocean pH levels should be evident since the beginning of the industrial age.
In fact, as this study indicates, researchers are finding it exceedingly difficult to locate ocean/sea waters that exhibit a dangerous decline in pH values. In addition, as this chart shows (click on chart to enlarge), any slight change in pH from human sources is being swamped, multiple times, by natures own unpredictable wide variability.
With Earth's 'greeness' and vegetation health rapidly improving, the most significant development for humanity is the increased capability to feed the world's poor.
And recent research indicates that regions such as Iran's Azarbaijan region will experience large increases in crop production, including wheat, if CO2 fertilization trends continue.
This article has the summary:
--->"The three Iranian researchers report that when the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 were considered, all regions experienced an increase in wheat yield, which "ranged from 5% to 38% across all times, scenarios and regions." And, therefore, they concluded that "we may expect a higher yield of wheat in northwest Iran in the future if technology development continues as well as in past years," which, one could logically conclude, is likely to be the case."
Previous peer-reviewed articles.
The #ExxonKnew propaganda tactics and legalized-actions being utilized by "green" Democrats, liberals, progressives, and other assorted leftists, is built on the belief that intimidation, suppression, coercion are effective, non-violent terroristic tools to be used to frighten individuals and groups, such as Exxon and other fossil fuel corporations.
The dozen recent articles below (click on each image for supporting article) accurately reflect an unprecedented, anti-American censorship and intimidation mindset that has come to possess the soul of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, this mindset should not come as a surprise. The book Liberal Fascism provides an understanding of how left of center philosophies almost always end up utilizing intimidation and bullying tactics to enforce a single viewpoint - aka, government-approved 'groupthink'.
And this book, The Wages of Destruction, provides the meticulous details how elected fascism was used during the 1930-40s to coerce corporations (both private and public) to the will of the big, all-knowing, socialistic government that had come to power, bringing with it an ilk of a Nazi-Orwellian politically correct religion.
And, it is well known that Democrats have long been associated with the awful affliction of political correctness. This affliction, as predicted by many, has now progressed to the obvious fascist-like, big, all-knowing government environment that many left-leaning American elites have fully embraced and pursued (as the above articles confirm).
Frankly, it has become an incredibly sad state of affairs for the American public. It's just more evidence that elections really do matter, as the Germans belatedly discovered after voting into power the aggressive National Socialist party.
For those interested, additional articles regarding the Democrats' recent intimidation attempts to shut down public debate and dialogue in order to enforce political correctness: go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The climate change consensus has long been predicting that global warming will bring more flooding to river regions.
"...freshwater flooding is "the most impacting natural disaster in terms of number of people affected and economic damages," adding that "some studies in the literature (e.g. IPCC, 2013; Stern Review, 2007) seem to indicate that flood damages are expected to increase in the near future as a consequence of a global climate change," citing the additional studies of Hall et al. (2005) and de Moel et al. (2011)."
So, several scientists decided to actually analyse the available climate data for the Po River region of Italy to determine if the IPCC and other predictors had any merit.
As always, they found the predictions counter to reality:
"...analyses revealed there was a significant increase in residential growth in and around the Po river, particularly near levees and dykes, which increased the exposure of persons and property to flood risk over the period of study. However, meteorologically speaking, Domeneghetti et al. report flood events have not increased. "Consistent with previous analyses (see e.g. Montanari, 2012; Zanchettini et al., 2008)," they write, "our trend detection analysis, which we carried out on long historical series observed for the Po river, does not detect any evidence of a statistically significant change in the flood hazard along the Po river and supports the stationarity of the hydrological series during the period of interest (i.e., last five decades)."
Note: Po River image source
Radical-green, progressive Democrats are now resorting to intimidation and inquisition tactics to force others into conformity with their anti-science regarding climate change. Due to their failing miserably in winning the actual science debate, they turn to coercion on those whom disagree.
Unfortunately, they conveniently ignore (or are unaware) the empirical evidence that climate change is a constant, which has produced ancient and geological era extremes in weather and temperatures - extremes that science has confirmed with a cornucopia of peer-reviewed research.
These extremes even took place eons 'Before Exxon' (BE), the fossil fuel giant that Democrats routinely blame for modern climate change and global warming.
Above is a paleo-climate reconstruction from this study for northern Greenland. It clearly depicts the swings in 'BE' climate change from the warming of the MCA (medieval climate anomaly) to the cooling of the LIA (little ice age) and the extreme warming during the early 20th century (ETCW) from the 1920s to 1940s.
The study's author's make the following comments regarding the δ18O proxy:
"The δ18O values of the 20th century are comparable to the medieval period but are lower than that about AD 1420. …. The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland."
Each of these extremes shown are a result of natural internal/external forcings prior to the gigantic consumer/industrial influx of human CO2 emissions starting post-1950.
Per the abundance of climate empirical research, blaming Exxon and other fossil fuel entities for global warming is simply anti-scientific. Climate change, including that of the late 20th century, does not require a change in CO2 - a trace atmospheric gas -to happen.
Additional historical-climate charts.
A group of scientists who researched past climate conditions near the coast of Japan made an interesting discovery.
As the article reports, the climate in that area has not experienced any of the hypothetical CO2-caused warming that "experts" claim is global, extreme and accelerating.
The chart associated with the peer-reviewed study makes it pretty clear that dangerous and unprecedented warming is absent from this part of the world.
The study's authors used tree-ring samples from Japan and Russia. Their proxy reconstruction even has a fitted trend (see red curve) that suggests temperatures there seem cyclical and being driven by natural cyclical forces. Those are thought to include ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings. These proxies usually come from widely scattered locations, with probably a rather sparse number of samples. In addition, tree rings don't provide a daily or monthly climate recording, unlike thermometer instruments. Yet, at the end of the day, scientists can produce a temperature record and trends over extended periods from an exceptionally low minimum of datapoints, and then their results are widely accepted by the climate science community.
Sometimes one wonders about these studies.
That said, these scientists identified another region of the world where dangerous and extreme warming rates are AWOL.
Additional historical charts.
March 26, 2016 at 03:11 PM | Permalink
Recently, multiple outlets chose to report to their readers and viewers that February 2016 temperatures were "astronomical" and "strange." Yet for a few hundred million people living in two of the leading industrial/consumer nations of the world, the February temperatures were definitely not astronomical, nor strange.
US February Temps (click on)
UK February Temps (click on)
From the U.S. and UK climate agencies, the above two charts plot the absolute temperature levels for the respective countries over the most recent 20 years, plus the global CO2 levels for February.
In the U.S., the February temperature was warm, but not exceptional; and not even the warmest February, especially when put into the context of 5% error bars.
In the UK, the populace experienced February temperatures that were rather well below average for the last 20 years.
As others have noted, the media frenzy regarding "astronomical" represent just more absurdities from alarmist advocacy by "journalists."
Obviously, the two above charts reveal the ludicrous terminology "astronomical" is not really global. Most of any "strange" surface warming likely was generated in regions of the world where there exists an exceptional sparsity of thermometers - in other words, probably the warmest surface regions were based on a given climate agency's strange-simulations.
And it would seem that continuously rising CO2 levels have had little influence on February temperatures in these industrialized countries. As the majority of experts agree, any high February 2016 regional surface and atmospheric temperatures were the direct result of a natural weather El Nino phenomenon in the the Pacific.
Finally, for those interested in the linear trends for both charts, the U.S. February temperatures are cooling at a robust -15.2°F per century pace; the UK February temps are no slacker as they are cooling at -7.2°C per century rate. Indeed, in the face of huge CO2 emissions, both the UK and the U.S. over the last 20 years exhibit a significant deceleration of temperature change warming.
Strange, does the all-powerful CO2 just ignore months starting with 'F'?
Note: Source of US and UK absolute February temperatures; source of February CO2 levels. Excel used to plot the line and bar charts and means; built-in Excel chart function for 5% error bars displayed on charts and linear trends calculated. Warning: linear trends should not be interpreted as a prediction(s).
A green extremist politician of the progressive Democrat camp, who has pushed for the Obama administration to investigate those who challenge the climate science orthodoxy dogma, is richly awarded in the game of life.
Of course, his own family's enrichments must be entirely due to the luck of life's game known as 'Bingo' - for sure!
And for sure, his RICO intimidation and threats have nothing to do with with money from green sources regularly flowing into the family coffers, right?
"A major donor is Annenberg Foundation, known for its support of radical leftist and environmentalist projects. In particular, it funded Chicago Annenberg Challenge, guided by Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist leader, widely quoted as saying: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”" Source
All amazingly good fate for him, but absolutely !true!, really. The Senator's good 'fortune' must be all about that bingo-luck, and just to repeat: there certainly is noooo correlation regarding the favorable personal green connections with his pushing for the prosecution of 'deniers' as he calls them, right?!
Oh, and by the way, color me stupidly skeptical on that idea too.
But let's cut him some slack - maybe the green Senator just does not realize he lives in the proverbial glass greenhouse and would be more believable if he wasn't smearing the windows of his own habitat.
It is now being embarrassingly reported that the gigantic Ivanpah solar farm, which Google and NRG received huge subsidies for, is not producing the amount of energy contracted for.
The wealthy investors in the project are now requesting an extension of the time needed to prove the farm's output can even meet minimum levels agreed upon.
As this failed boondoggle is proving for U.S. taxpayers, sustainable, efficient and affordable green energy is not easy nor cheap. Deriving energy from the Sun is not "free" as activist proponents of non-fossil fuel sources claim.
And it's not only the U.S. that continues to experience terrible results from subsidized-green projects designed to enrich wealthy investors - here are recent examples of Australia and Spain, plus the ever-growing German Energiewende flop.
As has been well documented from multiple public sources over recent years, the establishment elites of power and wealth continue to easily waste taxpayer billions on questionable politically correct energy sources, instead of focusing those dollars for the basic research needed to make green energy a viable self-standing possibility.
Note: Image source
(click on charts to enlarge)
The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.
Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.
Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.
Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.
[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]
Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.
Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.
Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.
This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses.
Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).
Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.
How can this be one might ask?
Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.
Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.
The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.
The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.
Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.
This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.
In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)
As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.
Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.
Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.
The continuing scientific climate research confirms what 97% of studies have previously determined: the northern latitudes, including the Arctic and Greenland, were considerably warmer in the past when CO2 levels were substantially below those of the 21st century.
The science facts are indisputable, natural forces and cycles frequently pushed the global climate into extremes of cooling and warming.
As this study found:
".....determined that (1) "maximum concentrations of chironomids, maximum occurrence of ephippia of the water flea Daphnia pulex, highest organic matter contents and lowest minerogenic input from c. 7700 to 4400 cal. a BP probably reflect the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM)," that (2) "the highest temperatures during the HTM are indicated around 7000 cal. a BP, when Salix arctica, which is considered a warmth-loving plant, had a maximum," that (3) "comparisons with Holocene records from East and North Greenland show similar immigration histories and similar trends, with the Little Ice Age as the coldest period during the Holocene, culminating about 150 years ago," and that (4) "subsequent warming does not indicate environmental conditions comparable to the HTM yet at this stage."
Additional climate-history research articles.
Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.
Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.
For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.
The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.
So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?
It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.
(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)
The end result?
The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.
And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.
Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.
A new batch of recent videos related to the global warming and climate change debate can now be found here at Collection #8.
Below is a short clip of one of the videos.
March 03, 2016 at 04:34 PM | Permalink
A threat of green-made extinction is in the air.
Now it appears that the significant offshore wind farm noise and other acoustic artifacts combine to produce a deadly impact on whales. And additional marine species may be adversely impacted too.
This image of the beached sperm whales on Europe's shores is not a typical occurrence. As this article explains, the gigantic offshore wind farms these two whales traversed may be the underlying cause. Sadly, an additional 27 whales suffered the same fates at the same time.
Since wind farm power generation has no discernible influence on global warming, and are unable to survive without a massive transfer of average taxpayer monies to wealthy investors, via government mandate, maybe its time for this subsidization of mass animal killings to end.
As the vast majority of climate peer-reviewed studies confirm, there were multiple periods in the geological and ancient past that exhibited, not only extreme climate change, but also hotter temperatures prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer greenhouse gases.
This new study regarding the Arabian Sea temperatures during winter seasons adds to the mountain of evidence that current climate change is of a less extreme variety, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions.
And as this other study indicates, that extra CO2 has provided substantial benefits to the biosphere.
Climate doomsday is just around the corner, or so they claim, and the left/liberal/progressive forces in academia just want U.S. science teachers to stop teaching otherwise...or else!
As discussed in this article (source of image also), there seems to be a large percentage of classroom teachers who actually discuss and teach both the anti-science of the politically correct doomsday-cult, as well as the objective empirical-based climate science (that would be sans the Ouija board of simulated catastrophes).
Essentially, they teach two sides of the debate, despite all the empirical evidence completely countering the catastrophic claims of ivory tower, green alarmists.
Most lukewarmers and CAGW skeptics should be rightfully upset that so many science teachers are unable to determine factual evidence from the unsupported claims of very speculative, non-validated guesstimates. And yet, at the same time, be happy that so many American teachers can think for themselves and challenge the young minds with open debate - Bravo!
With that said, the article points out some obvious truths and advice that those PC doomsday-embracing teachers might try to wrap their brains around in order to minimize the fear and alarm they may be causing students in the classroom.
"The way climate change should be communicated is this:
100% of scientists agree that climate changes. Almost all (99%) agree that our planet has warmed 1C since 1880, for example.
Almost all (97% or even more) agree that humans can affect the climate and that our effects have contributed to the warming we have seen since 1945.
Two-thirds (66%) believe our contribution has been significant – half or more of the current warming.
There is no consensus on some of the most important issues involved in assessing human-caused climate change, including atmospheric sensitivity, the most important factor.
There is little agreement on what the impacts of the warming will be, how much warming we will experience due to our actions or what actions we should take to change the course of the climate trajectory."
And, we will add this: There is zero understanding as to how to stop the natural occurring climate cycles, shifts and changes, which influence the global temperatures, produce the severe weather, and harm agriculture output even more than any human impacts (besides ElNino/LaNina and reoccurring monsoons, think the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming and other major climatic swings that have and will happen again).
Names of academia authors who seem to be proposing that science censorship (or specific favored propaganda?) be forced on grade, middle and high school teachers: Eric Plutzer, Mark McCaffrey, A. Lee Hannah, Joshua Rosenau, Minda Berbeco, Ann H. Reid.
Maybe these ivory tower, incredible lame-brains might try explaining to the science teachers, or even the prestigious "science" journals, how it is possible to stop the continuous natural climate change or those pesky major cyclical climate patterns.
Global warming alarmists, green activists, celebrities, and especially the mainstream press, collaborated in a loud chorus denouncing CO2 human emissions due to its supposed destructive nature on honeybee colonies.
With the onset of the widely publicized American 'colony collapse disorder', they were predicting that climate change from greenhouse gases would destroy the honeybees (and other bee species) and crop agriculture - meaning a massive starvation for mankind.
Something had to be done about global warming and this potential extinction. Climate change had to be dealt with swiftly. Do it for the children honeybees!!!
So, Obama proposed the typical tardy government response of more bureaucrats, taxpayer monies for scientists, and evidence-free untested policies, which will likely accomplish zilch.
In the meantime, the bee problem has been solved, like usual, via free markets, capitalism and individualism, not by govt diktat. Read the whole story here.
And not to be forgotten, like polar bears, another species predicted to go extinct a long time ago, bee colonies just reached a record high in the last 20 years at a time of the world's "hottest" temperatures evah and highest atmospheric CO2 levels.
Prior failed predictions.
Nope, they can't predict squat. It is with '97%' certainty that any climate model prediction will be wrong within 3 to 5 years.
Tip: Always bet against a climate model/simulation - the odds be with you.
Why do they always fail? As they say, read the whole thing in Real Clear Science.
And which groups of people really like to embrace the doomsday alarmist predictions from climate models?
Hmmm...the list is large: green crony capitalists; politicians on the green cronies donor payroll; scientists paid by government funded green research grants; journalists addicted to doomsday headlines; green environmental organizations feeding on the wallets of the gullible; and, of course, guilt-ridden celebrities who are massive CO2 polluters (take your pick, they come in all stripes and flavors).
The short version: NOAA's latest empirical evidence reveals that last 25 year period of global warming is not exceptional, nor unprecedented. Unexpectedly, NOAA's own evidence debunks their own global warming propaganda that they claim is fact.
Yes, the warming isn't exceptional but the irony certainly is.
NOAA is well known to aggressively push the misleading myth of a dangerous modern warming rate from CO2, and that this rapid warming can only be man-made, not a result of natural forces.
Yet its own temperature dataset proves past natural global warming rates of earlier periods are similar and as powerful.
And of course, NOAA always conveniently forgets about the substantial warming and climate change periods of the historical and geological past, which far exceed what NOAA has reported over the last 25 years.
Moving on to the long version of this analysis.....
(click on any chart to enlarge)
The long version: Unprecedented modern warming? A simple factcheck of NOAA's temp information proves otherwise.
With a multitude of politicos, greens, activists, pundits, journalists, and wildly uninformed celebrities jointly wringing their hands over 2015 being the hottest ever, it's beyond empirical doubt that the rate of the last 25 years of warming is not unique.
Yes, in a nutshell, it's warmer today than 25 years ago, but that's to be expected due to the 150+ year natural rebound in temperatures since the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
Putting aside the overused "hottest" adjective, does NOAA's empirical measurement prove that modern warming is significantly different than past natural warming? Have the last 25 years warmed a quantifiably greater amount than prior periods?
To the charts of NOAA empirical evidence to compare two 25-year climate periods of global warming.
Chart #1: For ease of comparison, the earlier 20th century monthly anomaly sub-dataset was offset so as to start at exactly the same anomaly point as the modern sub-dataset. When that is done, it is easier to visually match the similarities/differences of the two warming periods.
Despite their obvious differences in anomaly variation, these two distinct periods reflect similar outcomes over their respective 25 years. Even though the earlier 20th century period (1919 to 1943) experienced little in the way of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, its monthly warming anomaly increase is almost a perfect match to the last 25 years, ending 2015.
The chart's fitted trends (2nd order polynomial) reveal the earlier period with a closing warming rate that is accelerating away from the modern fitted trend.
Chart #2 plots the calculated linear trends for both 25-year periods. The difference in 'per century' trends is rather minuscule, especially when considering the massive greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1950. Objectively, the small trend increase of +0.40 degrees per century over the last 25 years is well within known natural variation.
Clearly, any warming impact of CO2 emissions has barely surpassed the per century trend produced by natural climatic forces from 1919-1943. Based on this empirical evidence, a robust conclusion would be that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is exceptionally insignificant.
Chart #3 compares the 5-year average warming for each period, using the same starting anomaly point. From the start, the ‘Modern’ 5-yr average rises much faster; but in an exceptional (dare we say "unprecedented") spurt, the ‘Earlier’ period 5-yr average closes the gap to a mere +0.03 degree warming difference at the end of 25 years.
Based on that tiny difference, one can fairly surmise that the huge CO2 emissions production over the last 25 years has not distinguished itself as climatically significant versus natural variation.
And it is interesting (and somewhat unexpected) that both the ‘Earlier’ and ‘Modern' periods had extended pauses, which are noted on the chart #3.
Chart #4 depicts the cumulative temperature change for the full 25 years (300 months) ending in 1943 and 2015; plus, their respective changes in CO2 levels. Per NOAA’s own empirical dataset, the earlier 20th century warming cumulative amount was actually greater than the modern era period ending in December 2015 — and remember, the December 2015 temperatures anomaly just had an incredible surge due to the current El Niño peak.
In conclusion, as stated in the first paragraph, modern warming over the last 25 years is not exceptional, nor unprecedented in spite of the gigantic accumulation of atmospheric CO2 emissions during the fossil fuel era. Based on real world climate and the actual evidence, simulated predictions of future dangerous warming remain without any scientific substance.
Notes: The period of 1919-1943 was chosen for analysis and comparison due to its visual pattern similarities to the last 25 years ending December 2015. Source of NOAA global temperature dataset; modern and historical CO2 datasets. Excel was used to plot and calculate trends/averages for all charts. Chart#1 had 1919-1943 anomaly plot adjusted to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 period; chart#2 linear trends are based off plots of chart#1; chart#3 uses 5-year averages calculated from each period's anomaly dataset and then the 1919-1943 5yr average was adjusted (i.e. offset) to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 5yr average; chart#4 cumulative differences calculation: the December 31, 1943 anomaly minus the December 31, 1918 anomaly and the December 31, 2015 anomaly minus the December 31, 1990 anomaly (both calculations covering a full 300 months).
As these two recent stories indicate, the U.S. EPA agency has seemingly morphed into an enemy of the people.
After doing much good for the nation's water and air qualities during the 1970's and 80's, the EPA has gone bureaucratically rogue by simply issuing new policies, fines/fees, onerous regulations and decrees without any representation - kinda like that old meme of 'no taxation without representation'.
The Supreme Court has finally stepped in, via an unprecedented action, to delay the EPA from imposing even more potential harm on Americans from the EPA's 'Clean Power Plan'.
Based on the recent evidence of the EPA's malfeasance and poor judgment, maybe the Supremes finally recognized that the rogue EPA had to be reined in.
Update: How much did the EPA pollute that Colorado river with?
(click on either image for for picture and article source)
It's been only several weeks of the ink drying on the Paris climate treaty agreement and serious t-r-o-u-b-l-e for its worldwide adoption has quickly emerged.
As this article indicates, the New York Times and others are wondering if the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision put the kabosh on the hopes of the fringe, extremist left/green radicals and their companions, the Democrat "progressive" conspiracy-addicts.
One can only hope, but unfortunately the climate change alarmists and doomsday cult will continue their wanton path of destruction regarding freedom of speech, open scientific debate and civil discourse about important policy issues.
The abhorrent fact that greens keep pushing for the criminalization of disagreement with their views suggests that legal barriers to their totalitarian impulses will not stop them.
Empirical evidence is always a good disinfectant for doomsday fears and conspiracy theories. And it's no different for the exuberant, catastrophic hyperbole, irrational and anti-science prognostications being pronounced on a daily basis regarding global warming.
The below charts of empirical evidence are another 'bolus' of disinfectant for the climate change hyperbole - hyperbole that is pushing both climate science research and debate to the ludicrous, for example.
|Chart #1 (click on any chart to enlarge)||Chart #2|
|Chart #3||Chart #4|
|Chart #5||Chart #6|
Chart #1 is one that will never be shown by the establishment climate science community, nor by the climate-doomsday alarmists.
The chart plots the absolute global averages for both surfaces and atmospheric temperatures since the major 1998 El Niño peak. It is a peak-to-peak chart through December 2015 that reveals absolute global temperatures to be on a fairly stable path over the last 18 years.
Global temperatures move up and down in a narrow band, which is why the rolling 5-year averages are essentially flat. This stability has occurred in spite of the large increase in CO2 levels (see black dots on chart) during the same time frame.
Chart #2 is a plot of the same time period but using the familiar temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures.
Climate scientists and alarmists strongly favor anomalies for their lack of context. With anomalies, the public sees frightening large temperature spikes without realizing that real-world temperatures, while extremely variable, rarely remain outside a very narrow climate range - anomalies don't reveal the narrow range context that the absolutes show in Chart #1.
It's important to remember that in everyday life the public depends on the reporting of absolute temperatures. For example, the TV weather announcer would provide the following style of summation: "tomorrow will range from a cool of 45 degrees in the morning to a high of 73 degrees by late afternoon" - they don't state that tomorrow's temperatures will have an anomaly of +0.03 degree over the average baseline by late afternoon.
Simply stated, they use absolutes when reporting to the public, not meaningless anomalies. The absolute temperature degrees provide valuable context that allows the public, be they urban commuters, regional bureaucrats or rural farmers, to make informed and rational decisions.
With that said, it is certainly true that anomalies are invaluable for research, but for scientists to employ them for communications with the general public is in a reality a form of lying by context-omission.
By avoiding the use of absolute temperatures, the establishment can thus produce the desired agenda narrative, in a context vacuum, that our world is "rapidly warming" in order to persuade the public of favored energy/taxation policies.
But as this series of charts reveal, the context provided by the absolute temperatures is critically important to determining if the "rapidly warming" doomsday fears are rational and contextually evidence-based.
Charts #3 (absolutes) and #4 (anomalies) are plots of the same surface and atmospheric temperature datasets but for a different period: 1880 through 2015.
Charts #5 and #6 are more of the same, except the plots start at January 1979, the first full year of satellite temperature measurements and empirical 24/7 global measurement evidence - 37 years, as of the end of 2015.
With that long introduction out of the way, what do these 6 charts tell the policymakers, the taxpayers and the general public?
First, atmospheric CO2 levels have been climbing, relentlessly.
Second, the NOAA surface temperature dataset indicates that the globe has been steadily warming since 1880, but in a sporadic fashion.
The long-term warming trend since the Little Ice Age amounts to +0.7C degrees/century, per NOAA. The shorter term surface warming since 1998 has been at a rate of +1.4C/century; and the atmosphere has actually cooled at a -0.1C/century rate since 1998.
Third, climate change and its variation, as represented by global temperatures in Chart #4, is evident since the first decade of observations. Climate change 'has', and 'is', and 'will' happen - it is a natural phenomenon that happens.
Fourth, although the satellite evidence clearly indicates that the atmosphere has warmed since 1979, that warming has stalled since the 1998 peak - Chart #2's 5-year average for the RSS dataset vividly shows the 'Pause/Hiatus/Stall', equal to a cooling rate of -0.1/century.
Both the surface and atmospheric actual temperature changes are significantly below the estimates predicted due to the large CO2 increases.
And this fourth observation is especially critical.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis states the greenhouse emissions will warm the lower atmosphere, which will then result in a subsequent warming of Earth's surface. Yet, since 1998 the surface has warmed (more on that surface "warming" here and here) while the atmosphere had not warmed at all through 2015 - this is a major AGW hypothesis disconnect.
In addition, the AGW hypothesis assumes that increasing greenhouse gases will cause the triggering of major positive feedbacks that in turn will cause dangerous, accelerated warming in the atmosphere and then the surface. In reality, the "dangerous, accelerated warming" has not taken place, anywhere.
Ergo, CO2 emissions are not resulting in the "consensus" predicted positive feedbacks.
Since there is no evidence of the doomsday positive feedback, which the climate experts and their computer models assume, the predictions of doomsday climate catastrophes actually remain without a sliver of requisite empirical evidence or scientific proof.
Notes: Datasets used: NOAA; RSS; CO2-modern; CO2-proxy. Excel was used to plot charts from the government's own climate data.
Even with the strong surge in global temperatures from the current El Niño and from the surge of 2015 global warming exaggeration and fabrication (here, here and here), there remains the strange case of establishment climate science models failing to meet expected outcomes.
Case in point. This chart replicates the famous climate model output presented to Congress and the world in 1988 by James Hansen, the then chief climatologist of the NASA/GISS climate research unit. (Here is an image of the original chart.)
The climate model predicted annual temperature changes would follow the bright green curve if greenhouse gases (GHGs) were not curtailed. GHGs include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride - the latter 3 are known as fluorinated greenhouse gases.
The orange curve represents the predicted annual temperature changes if the GHG growth rate were reduced over time.
The chart's cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted annual temperature changes if GHGs were curtailed by governmental polices and regulations so that year 2000 and beyond had a net growth rate equal to zero.
From the Hansen 1998 testimony, there is this statement:
"We have considered cases ranging from business as usual [BAU], which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
From the 1988 Hansen peer-reviewed article that supports his testimony, there is this statement:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' [chart's green curve] assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' [chart's orange curve] has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' [chart's cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
So.....since NASA's top climate expert's testimony, what has happened with the GHG growth and growth rates?
From a recent U.S. EPA report on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, there is the following:
"Global non-CO2 emissions are projected to increase significantly between 2005 and 2030 unless further actions are taken to reduce emissions...total emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have nonetheless increased."
From the latest IPCC AR5 climate report, we know the following about GHGs (a synopsis here):
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
In addition, the combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Regarding fossil fuel CO2 emissions, specifically (CO2 data here): NASA and Hansen's 'BAU' Scenario A was proposed at a time when CO2 emissions were growing: since 1972, the 15 years ending 1987 the world emitted 285 billion tonnes of CO2. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.2% per year for those 15 years prior to Hansen's 1988 testimony.
In contrast, for the 15 years ending 2014, the world has emitted a total of 467 billion tonnes - that is growth some 1.6 times greater than Hansen's 'BAU'. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.9% per year for the period since 1999.
Without any doubt, both empirically and objectively, NASA's Hansen's projected GHG emissions for 'Scenario A' has easily been exceeded since his testimony in 1988. To state otherwise is a falsehood, categorically.
Now, back to the above chart.
For the year 2015, NASA's model predictions had temperature change for all 3 scenarios declining. Of course, we now know the exact opposite took place with the sharp increase in 2015 global temps.
It is important to note that since the 1988 testimony, the NASA climate predictions have very rarely been correct regarding annual temperature changes. (NASA is not an exception, though - all climate computer models and experts suffer the same level of failure.)
For what it's worth, the chart also shows the 2016 predictions: there is continuing decline for Scenarios B & C, but a sharp spike up for Scenario A to a record calendar year anomaly level.
While global warming alarmists are celebrating 2015 as the "warmest" year ever, the climate model failures clearly point to the absurdity of focusing on peak or trough moments as indicators of informed expertise. Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.
Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3-year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3-year averages remove the focus from peaks/troughs.
As can be seen, 3-year averages of the GISS and HC4 datasets depict the last 3-year average increase due to the El Niño conditions, and those questionable man-made factors.
Be that as it may, the GISS and HC4 averages still remain closer to the realm of NASA's Scenario C range. As a reminder, the Scenario C predictions are a result of net zero GHG emissions simulated to have started in year 2000, which is yet another galaxy away from reality.
In conclusion, some relevant takeaways on climate models:
1. At this point, now close to 3 decades after NASA's testimony, one can safely surmise that expert climate models can't predict squat. The climate is a chaotic complex that defies even the most sophisticated and powerful forecasting tools.
2. GHG emissions have far surpassed the 1988 "world-will-soon-end" BAU construct - a construct that many alarmists still believe. Yet the predicted positive feedback from BAU has not occurred and thus runaway global warming is, without question, AWOL.
3. The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming/cooling that is due to natural forces. The models were designed to purposefully rely on greenhouse gas forcings as their major causal factor, while diminishing natural climate impacts. It's no wonder that climate models remain on a fail path.
4. Based on the model outputs from 1960 to the present, policymakers and the public would be better served by rejecting the alarmist scenarios A and B; instead, moving forward, base all adaption and mitigation policies on Scenario 'C', which would likely produce better outcomes with superior allocation of scarce resources.
The climate models definitely have their important place in the climate researcher's toolbox. They are best suited to advance science's better understanding of our world, but their climate predictions, forecasts and prognostications should never be relied on - they are unreliable and inaccurate.
Update h/t: Video of climate scientist making the same point about climate model failure before a congressional committee on Feb 2, 2016:
Additional climate model charts.