Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the "consensus" IPCC climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled."
Directcomparison IPCC vs Hadcrut UAH The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.
As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.
As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
The science is settled: US liberals really are the dumbest creatures on the planet
By James Delingpole
Today I am in New York on my publicity tour for Watermelons and as I sat at breakfast this morning, chomping on an Ess-a-bagel and reading Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics I found myself wondering – not for the first time – why it is that liberal-lefties manage to be so utterly wrong about everything.
“Because they’re stupid,” said a libertarian friend of mine. “Oh come on, not all of them surely? A bit misguided, maybe but…” I protested.
“No really they’re stupid because they’re not interested in facts. They just want to construct their pretty little narrative about the world, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on reality. And then they want to dump it on us. And ruin our lives. So not just stupid but evil too.”
Well, you know me: what a big-hearted, sensitive, caring, emollient kind of guy I am. I thought these words were harsh, really harsh. But that was before I saw this video.
It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts, talking to a liberal journalist from liberal blogsite Salon called Joan Walsh and another liberal journalist from liberal Rolling Stone magazine on the liberal politics programme Hardball. And guess what these liberals believe the problem with Climate Change is? Go on: think of the most stupid, reality-denying, fact-ignoring, evidence-torturing tosh anyone involved in the media could possibly have to say on the subject. (H/T Climate Depot)
Yes, that’s right.
They think that the naughty yellow pixies who pull the special, magic Climat-O-Levers which control the weather have been paid by evil capitalists with fat cigars in their mouth and $ signs on their pinstripe suits to make the world’s climate all horrid so that poor, underprivileged and disabled people and endangered creatures suffer – and that the reason we don’t know about it is because the media is run by evil Conservatives who want to keep this truth a secret.
Well, almost. What these liberal opinion-formers actually think – and you’ve really got to hand it to them: not even a lobotomised amoeba could beat them in a competition for dumbest creature on the planet, these three are absolute champs, Matthews especially, make no mistake – is as follows.
They think the main reasons for the public’s growing scepticism on Climate Change are 1. The media has been far too balanced on the subject and is not pushing the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives – led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican party is “anti-science”.
My favourite bit is the one where Chris Matthews, who I believe takes himself seriously as a journalist, declares: “I hate that even-handed, so-called objective journalism. You know, you can’t say something isn’t true if it’s true….”
Do you know, on that last point at least I totally agree with Chris Matthews. So let’s examine a few of the claims which he and his two guest liberal echo chambers made on Hardball.
1. The media under-reports climate change. Oh yes. That will explain, for example, the recent widely reported story Decline Of Oceans Worse Than Previously Thought – given unquestioning coverage everywhere from the Sydney Morning Herald, the New York Times and Time magazine to the BBC. Yet as research from Ben Pile at Climate Resistance shows, most of these experts offering their supposed expert views on the imminence of pelagic climate doom were in fact just an ad hoc group of activists from heavily politicised organisations like Greenpeace and Pew Environment Group. Such is the state of Environmental reporting around the world these days: it consists of little more than lovingly transcribed press releases from hardcore ecoloon pressure groups.
2 Jo Nova has estimated that the amount spent by government agencies, left-leaning charitable foundations and big business promoting “global warming” is approximately 3,500 times more than the amount spent funding climate change scepticism.
3. With notable exceptions such as Fox news, US conservative talk radio, the generally right-leaning blogosphere and one or two papers such as Canada’s National Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Express (and increasingly, the Mail) there are few media outlets in the world which broadcast anything other than green propaganda. Far from being evil, the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are islands of truth in a (presumably doomed, increasingly acidified) ocean of lies. (I’d be interested if Matthews could produce some concrete examples of these “lies” that Limbaugh and Beck have told on climate change).
4. Would that be “science” in the sense used by Al Gore, as in the received wisdom of a self-selecting cabal of post-normal activist scientists who dominate organisations like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. If so, then the Republican party is indeed “anti-science” because – with notable exceptions such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, of whom more in a subsequent post, very likely to be entitled “Mitt Romney prefers dog poop yogurt” – bases its scientific views on old fashioned virtues like rationalism, empiricism and open-minded, honest research rather than junk science dogma.
If we’re talking about science in the more old fashioned sense of the word as it might have been understood by, say Newton or Popper, rather than James Hansen or Al Gore, then no, the Republicans are not “anti-science.”
More evidence of the MWP
Discussing: Velle, G., Kongshavn, K. and Birks, H.J.B. 2011. Minimizing the edge-effect in environmental reconstructions by trimming the calibration set: Chironomid-inferred temperatures from Spitsbergen. The Holocene 21: 417-430.
Working with two short gravity cores and two long piston cores of sediments obtained from the deepest part of Lake Skardtjorna (77°57.780'N, 13°48.799'E) in 2008, plus a long core obtained in 2003, Velle et al. reconstructed histories of chironomid types and concentrations over the past 2000 years, which they translated into mean July air temperatures based on a modern mean July air temperature calibration data set compiled by Brooks and Birks (2000, 2001), plus additional unpublished data for 2001-2009, utilizing new approaches they developed in their paper.
[See: Brooks, S.J. and Birks, H.J.B. 2000. Chironomid-inferred late-glacial and early-Holocene mean July air temperatures for Krakenes Lake, Western Norway. Journal of Paleolimnology 23: 77-89; Brooks, S.J. and Birks, H.J.B. 2001. Chironomid-inferred air temperatures from Late-glacial and Holocene sites in north-west Europe: Progress and problems. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 1723-1741.]
This work revealed, in the words of the two researchers, a "warming that occurred at 1000 to 830 BP," where BP = 2003, that "may correspond to what is known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'." And based on their graphical representation of that record, we estimate that the peak warmth of the MWP (~ AD 1000-1170) was about 0.3°C greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period.
LOCAL WIND PATTERNS RESPONSIBLE FOR ARCTIC ICE RETREAT
Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline
By L. H. Smedsrud et al.
Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate. Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We present high resolution sea ice drift across 79° N from 2004 to 2010. The ice drift is based on radar satellite data and correspond well with variability in local geostrophic wind. The underlying current contributes with a constant southward speed close to 5 cm s−1, and drives about 33 % of the ice export.
We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960's. The increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. The increase in ice drift is large enough to counteract a decrease in ice concentration of the exported sea ice.
Using storm tracking we link changes in geostrophic winds to more intense Nordic Sea low pressure systems. Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60's, the late 80's and 90's, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades.
What the Warmists are wishing on us
Roughly 15 years after many “scientific experts” had warned about the arrival of another Ice Age, an estimated 35,000 government officials, diplomats, Non-Government Organization (NGO) activists and journalists from 178 countries attending a U.N.- sponsored 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or “Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, began to negotiate international agreements to counter a reverse climate threat. An observed shift to warming was seized upon as the basis for stabilizing “dangerous” anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases (principally CO2) at 1900 levels.
By that time they had already established a Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), and determined that “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in the additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and mankind.”
The Rio Earth Summit codified the U.N.’s central theme for the famous (or infamous) Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. has refused to ratify. Along with the FCCC, which established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it also produced three other much lesser-known initiatives — the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and Sustainable Development Agenda 21. The latter may ultimately prove over the long term to be most broadly influential of all.
Earth Summit chairman Maurice Strong left no doubt about where to place blame for global problems, stating in the conference report: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, golf courses, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable…A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
Addressing the Summit audience, Strong also suggested a primary remedy, whereby: We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Former Senator Timothy Wirth, representing the Clinton-Gore administration as undersecretary of state for global affairs, stated that public concern about global warming could be used to advance that cause: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which has lobbied for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.
The global warming rubric has served as an ideal platform to enable the U.N. to advance large philosophical visions, wealth redistribution agendas, and world governance goals under the banner of environmentalism. If this sounds a bit like conspiratorial paranoia, let’s review some words spoken by then-President Jacques Chirac of France in a 2000 speech supporting a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environment Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
Former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev clearly recognized an opportunity to use climate alarmism to advance global socialistic Marxist objectives following the U.S.S.R.’s economic and political collapse. In 1996 he observed: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
The delusion of human climate control
Comment from Australia
The Puyehue volcano in the Andes mountains of southern Chile blows up. It poses the question, whatever carbon tax we impose on industry in Australia - on businesses who pump carbon into air as a waste product - how are we going to fine the Andes mountains or the real culprit, Puyehue, for spewing all that carbon dust into the air as if it were a giant candle on Guy Fawkes night?
Bob Brown was rubbing his hands together in glee - as they also do in Tasmania with the purpose of warming them in the freezing cold of Hobart - when he extracted the last ounce of tax from red-bobbed Julia Gillard on the carbon issue. Then, after it had waited 50 long years to blow its top, Puyehue sent millions of tonnes of sulphur and ash teeming with carbon into the skies, where it continues to circle - disrupting flights and raising carbon levels in the atmosphere to choking point. In a final insult it is believed that no one in the Australian government, including Brown, was consulted before it blew its stack.
It makes a mockery of serious governments around the world who are seeking to pass significant legislation controlling the levels of carbon and sulphur that industry can pump into the air, when a dummy spit by Puyehue spoils everything.
Australia was going ahead with carbon taxing legislation, as a leading nation, when most of the world was not thinking that the atmosphere surrounding Australia might magically stand still and not wander around the rest of the globe where non-taxed carbon molecules frolic free in proportions dwarfing our taxed molecules. God is poking his tongue through the Puyehue volcano, whose carbon output dwarfs industry's.
Although Australian governments have an impressive history of being able to tax virtually everything - goods and services, imports, exports, mining, and super mining - it would test even Peter Garrett to tax the volcano for breaching emissions policy. The same thing happened when the unspellable volcano in Iceland decided to blow its top and send millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, interfering with European air traffic. Iceland was bankrupt at the time and could have used the hefty fine but found it couldn't pay itself.
The Earth is not playing ball with its inhabitants, although we are practically family, having been created by God. It's like trying to fill the bath by the leaving the hot and cold taps running but someone has pulled the bath plug and no matter how much we turn the taps on, the water disappears down the plughole. Did God do this deliberately, playing a trick on Earth, or did he devise a huge reality game show called Survivor Earth?
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here