Joseph D’Aleo:
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
And it gets worse….
The White House (Obama) has just upped their ”Social Cost of Carbon,”http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/social_cost_of_carbon_for_ria_2013_update.pdf
As a result of this higher cost of carbon’s ”damage” to the earth, Obama can and does cause the price of appliances to go way up.
Dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, microwave ovens, washers and dryers; all will be affected.
And how does the White House justify this when the preponderance of studies do not back them up?
Obama’s EPA has focused just on the worst 5 percent of computer scenarios, and then tells us what the social cost of carbon would be.
This alleged justification for this odd procedure is that the standard cost/benefit approach leaves humanity vulnerable to catastrophic risks.
So, conventional cost/benefit analysis has been thrown out in favor of a skewed new imaginary standard based on worst-case scenarios!
For more see:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/06/06/white-house-revises-dubious-social-cost-of-carbon/#_edn1
Curt,
For anyone interested in getting a glimpse into the growing fanatical misinformation industry fabricating inventions which denigrate FRACKING, here’s a valuable feature documentary worth a visit: FrackNation
There’s money and fame in them thar hoax hills.
As a good friend of mine says, “Just follow the money”. If you don’t believe it, ask how much Al Gore is worth today, as opposed to before he became the ‘former vice-president’. Who says an idiot can’t get rich?
Please allow me to definitely prove that the AGW models and their supporters are wrong. It’s quite simple, we know they’re a bit weak on math. Their claimed 97% of people agreeing is actually 9.7%. Far from any significant data point. It’s almost in the category of ‘noise’. Sadly the Sheeple tend to listen to the loudest noise, especially when it’s coming from our ‘Government’.