Of course, "I don't know" is probably a much better answer than the amazing global-warming-has-recently-decided-to-hide-in-the-ocean-depths...because it just got really, really tired of warming the world, ya know.
(click on charts to enlarge, data sources)
Despite the scientific malfeasance exhibited by those demonizing CO2, and who also are pushing the "dangerous, accelerating global warming" fear-mongering, the facts and empirical evidence remain clear: rapid, accelerating, unequivocal, irrefutable, runaway dangerous global warming is a blatant lie.
Not even the corrupt methodology of altering historical temperatures to higher levels is enough to hide the truth.
As the above four HadCRUT4 temperature charts reveal, regardless of the time span represented, it is clear that the expert predictions of "tipping point" global warming and boiling oceans with millions of refugees roaming the world have no merit. Essentially, these and other catastrophic forecasts were sanctioned falsehoods, designed to frighten and force the public and policymakers to adopt the views of the green, anti-CO2, anti-growth and anti-population jihad.
Not only do these charts make it clear that CO2 emissions are not the Earth's proverbial thermostat, as claimed by the anti-CO2 scientific community, but over the last 10 years the globe has actually been cooling at a trend of -0.5°C per century.
The blue curve on each chart depicts the 36-month average of global temperature anomalies, which not even the most strident global warming ideologues at the NY Times or Washington Post could ever interpret as a current condition of a rapid, dangerous acceleration of temperature change.
Over the last 30 years (the bottom chart on the right), the linear temperature trend is a +1.7°C, well below the IPCC's projections. And that long-term trend has been shrinking due to the cooling over the last 10 years. The impact of the cooling is represented by the 2nd order trend fit (pink curve) over the 30 years - obviously, the long-term trend is flattening.
1. Currently, accelerating, dangerous global warming does not exist.
2. In fact, currently, no global warming exists - cooling, yes.
3. CO2 is not a magical thermostat knob that controls the world's temperature. Natural temperature and climate variations overwhelm any small impact of human CO2 emissions.
4. Finally, simply stated, elites representing politics, government science, academia, journalism, big business and green activist organizations who push the climate catastrophe meme are the same folks who are responsible for the continuous stream of scandals, crony-corruption, cover ups, misinformation, abuses, fabrications and blatant lies. They are not to be believed nor trusted on any facet of climate change (which, btw, they deny happens naturally).
(click on image to enlarge, image source)
A very interesting article over at WUWT regarding the new "restatement" of temperature empirical evidence by the folks in charge of publishing the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset.
The HC4 dataset is brand new, first being published in 2012 to replace the IPCC's gold-standard, the HadCRUT3 dataset. And now it's announced that the scientists did such a bang-up job in 2012 that they had to completely revise the HC4...less than 12 months later.
As the adjacent chart makes perfectly clear, this new revised HC4 "global warming trend" (green trend line) is significantly higher than the non-warming HC3 trend exhibited since 1997 (see red trend line).
As is well known, there exists much evidence of a continuous, disturbing pattern of temperature dataset fabrication/manipulation that consists of changing the historical empirical evidence to better portray the alarmist agenda of dangerous global warming. To accomplish such fabrication, IPCC-favored "scientists" will utilize extreme methods to generate faux warming. The result being outcomes that are outside the realm of normal reality, such as:
"Werner Brozek says:
May 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm
From 1997 to 2012 is 16 years. Here are the changes in thousandths of a degree with the new version of Hadcrut4 being higher than the old version in all cases. So starting with 1997, the numbers are 2, 8, 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 7, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8, and 15. The 0.015 was for 2012. What are the chances that the average anomaly goes up for 16 straight years by pure chance alone if a number of new sites are discovered? Assuming a 50% chance that the anomaly could go either way, the chances of 16 straight years of rises is 1 in 2^16 or 1 in 65,536. Of course this does not prove fraud, but considering that “HadCRUT4 was introduced in March 2012”, it just begs the question why it needed a major overhaul only a year later...I believe people should not wonder why suspicions are aroused as to whether or not everything is kosher."
So, in essence, the likelihood of these latest HC4 temperature "global warming" adjustments being truthful is about as probable as one flipping a coin 16 times and getting a 'heads' all 16 times -robustly not likely.
Conclusion: The IPCC's and other climate research agencies bogus/ludicrous "climate science" is never-ending, and that is a 100% certainty.
The decades-long quack global warming catastrophic "science" has proven to be without robust factual merit. The CAGW fear-mongering often takes the form of hysterical, wildly exaggerated predictions about accelerating sea level increases with complete disregard to the known climate empirical evidence.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence research, Michael Mann has recently gone public with crazed talk of his beloved Jersey Shores being swamped by a mythical, huge sea level increase:
"He said sea levels could rise six to nine feet by the end of the century. “We’re not talking the 20 feet that would be necessary to submerge Manhattan. But the Jersey Shore of my youth will not exist if we continue on this course.”"
Whoa there chubby white man with the forked-like tongue! Let's put aside those uncomfortable, real global sea level facts for a minute, and instead, just focus on the actual Jersey Shore sea level facts.
The red 'X' on the above left image denotes where the current satellite measurements of sea surface height were taken, which were then plotted on the adjacent graph.
Indeed, as the Excel calculated linear trend indicates, since 1992, the sea level at the Jersey Shore region has increased. In fact, it has increased at the unbelievable rate of +0.02 centimeters per month! This means by January 1, 2100 the Jersey Shores will be "swamped" by an increase of...wait for it...a spectacular, humungous, world-ending-as-we-know-it, 8.9 inches!!!
Yep, in the world of Mann's catastrophic AGW fantasies, a continuation of an actual 9-inch sea level trend somehow miraculously turns into a mind-boggling, hysterical 9-foot increase.
Honestly, is it any wonder that the 97% well informed consensus thinks Michael Mann likely distorts the truth fibs? Is it any wonder that overall the global warming hysteria doesn't even show up on the public's radar of biggest concerns?
As has now become well established, climate experts and their climate models have done an abysmal job at predicting global temperatures. This spectacular prediction failure has led to even greater failures for predictions of multiple climate attributes, including global sea levels.
A new study has analyzed the sea level prediction capabilities of Australian government experts and found extreme prediction failure, which is another resounding testament to the gigantic waste of climate research billions over the last few decades.
(1) The official Australian claim of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally. Rather, it seems strongly contradicted
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future." [Nils-Axel Morner, Albert Parker 2013: Environmental Science]
Note: Chart has 36-month average HadCRUT4 global temperature curve (#7 maroon) superimposed.
The two images above are derived from one of the study's own charts (see the Bob Tisdale article).
The chart on the left depicts those areas of the world that experienced modern warming supposedly greater than any warming over the last 2,000 years; and, the chart on the right represents those areas where modern warming was less than that of certain periods during the past 2,000 years. Both charts have the past 2,000 year atmospheric levels superimposed (the pinkish curve) on them.
It is from the Tisdale analysis that it first becomes apparent that the law of unintended consequences has interestingly come into play - the study's authors have actually built a case (be it likely an unforced error) that supports the views of the majority of catastrophic global warming skeptics/lukewarmers.
From the study itself, and a close review of the above images, we now know the following:
First, as even the New York Times points out, this study determined that the Arctic was warmer during the 1940s to 1970s than during years of the late 20th century. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Greenland ice core data, modern warming is still below peaks of the Medieval & Roman periods.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Third, this study finds Antarctica was warmer, from the 2nd through 13th centuries, than during our modern era. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Vostok ice core data, modern warming is still below the peak temperature between 1AD and 1000AD.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fourth, this study points out that true global warming has not taken place in the modern era, but regional strong warming has. Of the 7 regional areas analyzed, only 3 exhibit a strong warming (more likely only 2, see point #11 below). The other four regions, not so much. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fifth, the study clearly indicates that major climate change is taking place at all times, in different manners, across the globe. Climate change is not some new modern phenomenon. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Sixth, the study shows atmospheric CO2 levels are not a cause of past major climate change. Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, CO2 levels are stable yet climate change is constantly happening. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eighth, this study, in combination with the known recent global temperature trend (subsequent to this study's ending date of 2000AD), clearly makes an indisputable case that recent modern global warming is not as claimed: unprecedented; unequivocal; irrefutable; irreversible; nor dangerously accelerating. Confirms view of skeptics.
Ninth, this study affirms that periods of "unprecedented" warming do not cause the IPCC's urban legend of "runaway," "tipping point," dangerous global warming. Of course, the hottest period ever recorded (Minoan era) in the ice cores over the last 4,000 years already proved that the mythical "tipping point" is just that. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Tenth, this study again provides proof that the AGW-alarmist researchers will use each and every attempt to remove and/or minimize the exceptional Medieval Warming Period that the vast majority of local/regional paleo research studies, and the historical literature, have well documented. It is simply freaking amazing that this group of researchers would present an analysis of Europe's past warming without the extreme and extended warming of the Medieval era (see chart on right). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eleventh, this study clearly proves to the public that the proponents of AGW-alarmism will utilize excessive cherry-picking of empirical paleo research to fabricate their "scientific" claims of modern "unprecedented" warming. Not only did this study exclude the preponderance of paleo-scientists' research that documents past extreme warming, but this study was brazen enough to include paleo temperature reconstructions that even a peer-reviewed science journal ultimately rejected because of its statistical flim-flam. Without the infamous, widely discredited Gergis et al. study, it is highly likely that the "Australasia" region of the above chart on the left would have to be moved to the chart of the right, above - thus leaving just 2 regions of the world that may have had modern "unprecedented" warming in the 20th century, and only a single region of the world that had "unprecedented" warming since 1970 (recall that this study confirmed the Arctic was warmer from the 1940s to the 1970s). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
(click on images to enlarge, image source)
The IPCC's refusal to incorporate and/or accept any empirical evidence that is contrary to their climate models' alarmist catastrophe predictions is well known. As a result, the IPCC's scary global warming predictions have been shown to be egregiously wrong and terribly misleading for policymakers.
The anti-science fantasy approach to the IPCC's political-driven "analysis" has suffered another major blow from a new study by Nicola Scafetta. This latest research confirms previous studies about just how wrong the IPCC has been about those "accelerating" sea level increases.
"This is a major paper, which undertakes a comprehensive review of recent studies, which diverge widely in their findings...main reason for divergence is the length of records used in studies, and shows that the quasi-cyclic oscillations of the major ocean basins largely account for the differences in those studies conclusions...it is shown that the periodicity of the major oscillations, being 60 to 70 years, require a minimum record length of around 110 years in order to prevent polynomial fitting of long term secular trends being contaminated with shorter term quasi-cyclic variation. Using tide gauge records going back as far as 1700...compares the trends in sea level rise acceleration at widely spread geographical locations once the quasi-cyclic components are removed and finds the long term global average to be very small – around 0.01mm/yr...study suggests that sea level rise during the C21st [21st century] will be around 277+/-7mm, or about 9 inches." [Nicola Scafetta 2013: Climate Dynamics]
(click on image to enlarge, data sources)
He is the scientific antithesis of those fringe, global warming alarmists predicting climate change disasters and doomsday over the last few decades. Fringe-green personalities such as Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, John Holdren, Michael Mann, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Hansen, Al Gore, Jeff Masters, Paul Erhlich are just some of the quack climate prognosticators-of-hysteria that Happer usually mops the science lab floor with.
And Happer is at it again, taking to task the anti-science clerics in a piece written for the Watts Up With That? blog. His current ire is focused on the crazed CO2-fanatics' claims of future temperatures by year 2050.
In his article, Happer discusses the basic disregard of physics that a hapless (witless?) WSJ reporter is responsible for. Instead of writing about known science, she instead lends credibility to an utterly ludicrous +6.0 degree warming prediction from the fundamentalists, which has no real basis in physics.
As the good doctor explains, per the logarithmic nature of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, the subsequent global temperature increase will essentially be a +1.0 degree increase - not 2 degrees, not 3 and certainly not 6. This is irrefutable physics, explained in detail via the requisite formulas.
The real-world physics does not allow for a fantastic 6 degree increases to be achieved; for that to happen, the IPCC's mythical positive feedbacks have to arise.
In reality though, there is no acceptable physics science that supports the belief that positive feedbacks will arise, and at the same time produce the hypothetical big temperature increases. And adding to the green clerics' fallible alarmism, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the fantasized feedbacks of their consistently wrong climate models even exists (hmmm...kind of like those fantasized, mythical 72 virgins).
With all that in mind, the above chart attempts to visualize (using the gold-standard, IPCC empirical temperature dataset) what Dr. Happer has explained. Let's breakdown this Excel chart to its components:
1. The blue curve (with the bluish area underneath) represents the simple running 12-month average of global absolute temperatures calculated from HadCRUT4 monthly anomalies. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), the actual global temperature increase has been about +0.85°C, through February 2013.
2. The red curve represents a simple 60-month average of the blue curve's data. The recent decade+ global warming pause (i.e., "stall") is clearly evident.
3. The light orange curve is a 2nd order fitted trend of the global temperature measurements extended out till year 2050. Based on this Excel fitted trend of all the empirical evidence, global temperatures are headed for a 15.0°C average by 2050 - an increase of about +0.53 degrees over today.
4. The darker orange arrows on the right axis represents the likely range of temperature increase from a doubling of initial 1850AD CO2 levels that known physics supports (although Dr. Happer's calculations indicate an increase of+1.0 degree, this Excel chart utilizes a narrow range that many other experts have spoken to). The possilbe range per the physics: +1.0 to +1.5 degrees.
5. The black-dotted curve includes monthly estimates of monthly atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1959, and thereafter, the actual monthly measurements.
6. The grey curve is a 2nd order fitted trend for CO2 levels extended out to year 2050.
7. Finally, the pink-dashed line represents the non-physics +6.0°C global warming increase predicted by many of the fear-mongers.
This visualization of the empirical reality lends solid observational support to the physics laid out by Dr. Happer. In addition, the chart denotes how absurd the +6 degree fear-mongering is, and why "scientists" and reporters promulgating it should not be believed.
The green-religion fundamentalists have a long history of making crop failure and mass starvation predictions. A 2010 study by a group of academia warming alarmists added to the collection of doom prognostications of coming crop failures, due to anthropogenic warming from human CO2 emissions.
As the above chart on the right indicates however, despite the modest global warming since the 1970's, and the massive increase of human CO2 levels, world rice production increased and continues to do so. Why?
Well, certainly better agriculture methods and technology made fools of the green 'Earth Day' fanatics. In addition, the latest research actually documents with irrefutable evidence that rice crop yield benefits from both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.
Roy et al..."the five researchers from the Central Rice Research Institute of India conducted a three-year open-top-chamber field study to observe the effects of elevated as opposed to ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 vs. 390 ppm), as well as elevated temperature (T, 2°C above ambient temperature), on dry matter production, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant parts, and their allocation in a tropical rice cultivar...Results of the experiment revealed the following responses in the elevated CO2/elevated temperature treatment:
(1) Dry matter accumulation in the aboveground portion of the rice plants was enhanced by 18.1% at maturity.
(2) Root biomass, leaf area index and net carbon assimilation rates also increased significantly.
(3) Grain yield was significantly higher (19.6%) in the CO2-enriched treatment.
(4) The net carbon yield increased by 24.2%.
(5) Nitrogen allocation increased significantly in leaf (13%), stem (14%) and panicle (17%) at maturity.
[K.S. Roy, P. Bhattacharyy, S. Neogi, K.S. Rao, T.K. Adhya 2012: Field Crops Research]
(click on image to enlarge, source)
In a recent article, Bob does it again, this time exposing the bogosities of both the "missing heat" by Kenneth Trenberth's missing brain and then confirming the pathological exaggeration of Hansen's "boiling oceans."
Prior to speaking to the above chart, Bob points out a flagrant propaganda ploy used by establishment climate-alarmist scientists, and the IPCC, which is never challenged by the MSM press (to paraphrase): "OMG, the oceans have warmed by 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules!" Hey, that's a lot scary warming, no?
Well.....no, it's actually not a lot of warming. The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09C degrees over 55 years. Of course, the climate "scientists" who use this propaganda trick don't feel inclined to point out that the ludicrous figure with all those zeros is essentially a ludicrous tiny amount of global warming.
The Tisdale chart above is a plot of NODC's ocean heat empirical dataset, and a similar dataset from the UK. Both dataset plots provide essentially the same trend: for NODC, the 100 year trend is a meager +0.16°C increase and the UK's an even tinier +0.13°C.
So, in the case of the NODC findings, the almost impossible-to-measure +0.09°C over 55 years for the top 2,000 meters of the ocean indicates future temps, a hundred years out, will equate to an almost impossible-to-measure increase of +0.16°C.
Contrasting those literal flyspeck trends to the typical James Hansen buffoonery, to boil the oceans would require the current average ocean water temperature to increase some 85°C. Per this actual ocean empirical evidence shown in the chart: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, EVAAAH!
Then there is the climate-savant Trenberth who thinks all the missing global warming has disappeared into the deep oceans. He conjectures that this 55-year increase will soon start boiling waters from underneath. Hmmm, or is it instead all those warmer ocean molecules will stage a simultaneous break-out of their deep ocean prison and immediately flash-fry humanity with an +0.16° increase?
With these two knuckleheads prominently representing the case for bogus climate alarmism, is it any wonder the most recent Gallup poll doesn't reflect even a single scintilla of the American public being impressed by global warming "scientific" hysteria.
(click on the chart to enlarge, data)
Additional climate and temperature charts
Note: Above chart uses the NCDC global dataset published through March 2013. The left two columns (CO2 & temperature) represent the 15 years (180 months) ending March 1998, the right two columns represent the 15 years ending March 2013.
The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.
The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.
Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.
(click image to enlarge, source)
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
(click on images to enlarge - source of charts)
As has been well documented, global warming has gone AWOL and in some regions of the world, global cooling trends have materialized, which scientists across the world are starting to express concern with.
In the key crop regions of the U.S., there has been an extended cooling trend that persists despite the immense human CO2 emissions released over the last two decades. The above four NOAA charts depict those cooling trends across the a wide swath of American agricultural production. These charts represent the main American corn, soybean, spring and winter wheat growing areas.
What the huge U.S. breadbasket needs at this point is a few years of some good old fashioned global warming that will reverse the potential devastation a mass cooling would deliver to crop yields.
Unfortunately, though, it appears nature is not delivering what the American farmers and ranchers need this spring.
(click on image to enlarge, image source)
In another fascinating exposé of climate science flim-flam produced by yet another group of academia climate-quacks, Steve McIntyre has the adjacent chart embedded in his article.
This chart represents a 5,000 year span of temperature variation in the Arctic region (Ellesmere Island) per peer-reviewed research . To add context, we superimposed the atmospheric CO2 levels (mauve curve) from the last 2,000 years.
Several very obvious conclusions can be drawn that gut claims by anti-science alarmists and quacks:
1. Climate change is a science-proven constant.
2. Periods of global warming and global cooling happen frequently
3. The Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the modern era
4. Temperatures changed regardless of CO2 levels
5. CO2, be it natural or human, is not the globe's "thermostat"
Finally, per the HockeySchtick blog, it is known that the essentially barren Ellesmere Island had temperatures some 2 to 3 degrees higher than current temps, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions of our modern consumer/industrial era.
(click on image to enlarge, source)
"Working with three sediment cores retrieved off the coast of central Japan...Isono et al. generated a multidecadal-resolution record of alkenone-derived sea surface temperature (SST) that covers the full expanse of the Holocene...This record, in their words, "showed centennial and millennial variability with an amplitude of ~1°C throughout the entire Holocene," and they state that "spectral analysis for SST variation revealed a statistically significant peak with 1470-year periodicity." At the latter end of the record report that "SST minima centered at ca. 0.3 ka and ca. 1.5 ka are correlated with the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages Cold Period in Europe, respectively, whereas the SST maximum centered at ca. 1.0 ka is correlated with the Medieval Warm Period." From data presented in the authors' Figure 2, we estimate that the MWP was about 1°C warmer than the Current Warm Period." [Dai Isono, Masanobu Yamamoto, Tomohisa Irino, Tadamichi Oba, Masafumi Murayama, Toshio Nakamura, Hodaka Kawahata 2009: Geology]
From year 1AD, atmospheric CO2 levels were essentially flat until the late 19th century. The superimposed mauve CO2 hsitorical curve (data sources) clearly indicates that CO2 levels were absolutely not responsible for the huge past temperature variation.
Likewise, more recent global warming/cooling cannot be explained by CO2's tiny impact.
The recently discredited study (and widely confirmed science abomination) known as the Marcott et al (2013) study actually incorporated this Isono et al (2009) peer-reviewed field research into their own study. Yet the wide historical temperature variation exhibited by the Isono research was effectively disappeared by Marcott's absurd data/statistical manipulations.
(click on image to enlarge, source)
Since our last post about the now infamous Marcott et al. study, a plethora of articles have been written building on the exposé of this hockey stick statistical perversion.
Some of the more recent ones include:
"The Marcott gong show – before in the unquestioning press and after the blogosphere review as told by Ross McKitrick"
"When this became public, the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ. It finally appeared over the weekend, and contains a remarkable admission: “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”"
"Q. Why did realclimate publish the Marcott FAQ on Easter Sunday?
A. Because if they’d waited until Monday, everyone would have thought it was an April Fools’ joke."
"However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity...The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published recently in Science."
"But Mann's hockey stick came under withering fire for its dodgy statistical methods and selective use of data and has since been pretty much abandoned. But that hasn't kept the warmists from trying again, this time with a new graph, named after lead study author Shaun Marcott, purporting to show global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, this time with a new, even bigger "blade" to the hockey stick showing the supposed upward thrust of temperatures in the past 100 years...Except that the whole thing is dissolving in another fiasco."
"This appears to be one more in a long series of frauds and hoaxes perpetrated by climate alarmists. This one unravelled faster than most; nevertheless, it served its purpose. Newspapers and magazines around the world trumpeted Marcott's findings, and reproduced his hockey stick graph, as though it were solid evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Now the question is, will they leave their readers with this false impression, or will they publicize the fact that they were had, once again, by climate alarmists?"
"In other words, all that stuff about having the highest temperatures for millennia and about eye-popping warming over the past 100 years appears to have no basis in the paper’s actual temperature reconstruction."
Regarding the above image of those Marcott et al proxies used in their study:
"Since the modern period by almost everyone is considered to be post 1950, only 9 of the 73 [Marcott et al] proxies contain any data that can be relevant to the global warming issue. Right away that concerned me, but when I looked at the data for those 9 proxies something very interesting became apparent...What is most interesting about all of these proxies is that none of them show the warming result the paper ended up with. Not a single one."
Per The Economist magazine and other major mainstream media outlets, it's now obvious the conventional, "consensus" global warming meme promulgated by taxpayer-funded researchers is no longer robust - even for the MSM press-release puppets it would appear.
The graph on the right is a depiction of global temperatures as reported by The Economist (pink CO2 curve superimposed by 'C3'). And The Economist and their mainstream press brethern are not alone in challenging the failed AGW orthodoxy: here and here.
While the majority of "journalists" are still awakening from their anti-science, intellectual slumber regarding climate science, the latest empirical global temperature measurements (RSS atmosphere temps and CO2 chart on the left) confirm what The Economist is essentially reporting - global warming has gone AWOL and a slight cooling trend has developed over the last 10 years (a minus 0.42 degrees by 2100 if the trend persists).
This warming hiatus happened despite the loud and hysterical shrieking by the climate scientists on the public dole that current CO2 emissions would cause rapid, unequivocal, irrefutable accelerated warming.
And not only are the falling temperatures invalidating the IPCC's AGW hypothesis, a new Pew poll reports the public support of the global warming hysteria is dropping like a rock - down to only 33%.
(click on image to enlarge - original image source)
Read here. Rud Istvan has written a devastating critique of the new 'Science' journal article that is known as Marcott et al. 2013. His work is based on a hockey stick science audit that Steve McIntyre is in the process of performing (here, here, here, here, here and here).
Below are the key points that one can infer and/or determine from the audit results that Istvan describes:
1. Marcott's PhD thesis regarding a multi-proxy reconstruction of 73 unique paleo-temperature records did not possess a hockey stick "blade"
2. A multi-proxy hockey stick blade, which provides proof that modern warming is "unprecedented," can be fabricated from any number of individual records using several "statistical" techniques
3. Since the original 73 dataset thesis did not have the proverbial "blade," the Marcott et al. study chose to literally change (manipulate) multiple paleo-dataset ending dates to fabricate a bogus hockey stick blade
4. Of the 73 proxy paleo records used in the original Marcott thesis research, Marcott et al. moved forward in time 10 of the individual paleo-datasets and 9 backward in time - the other 54 dataset ending dates did not change
5. By simply manipulating specific paleo proxy ending dates, Marcott et al. were able to fabricate the imaginary hockey stick representation (see black curve in above alkenone-proxy chart) versus the original thesis non-hockey stick representation based on the actual paleo-dataset's beginning and ending dates (see red curve)
6. Marcott conducted no original paleo-dataset research for this 'Science' journal study, nor was he an expert on any of the 73 proxy records used - yet he changed the ending dates of the given expert's original science research without obvious requisite scientific merit/expertise
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
The adjacent chart is a representation of historical past (1751-1899) in regard to CO2.
Interestingly, during this period the atmospheric levels of CO2 (black) grew at a much faster rate than the growth of human emissions (red). Clearly, nature itself was pumping much more CO2 into the atmosphere than evil humans who are constantly vilified by the hysterical global warming alarmists.
The likely cause of this remarkable CO2 growth was from the Earth's own warming, causing oceans to release ever greater amounts of CO2 - not a surprise after the lengthy freezing conditions of the Little Ice Age (LIA). As the world is still rebounding from the LIA cold, nature will continue to warm the oceans thus releasing ever greater amounts of CO2.
As the debate over the Keystone Pipeline heats up (goes crazy?), the actual worst case of human CO2 emission growth due to the pipeline is miniscule. From a Congressional research study (page #29), the total increase of pipeline activity CO2 emissions ranges from 3 million metric tons to 21 million metric tons annually. In contrast, the U.S. emits some 6.5 gigatons of CO2 emissions each year - indeed, a worst case of an extra 21 million tons is the proverbial krill speck in the ocean, so to speak.
On the above chart, the green line is a plot of Keystone CO2 related emissions if the pipeline was opened in 1751 and lasted until 1899. As can be seen in the context of real world emissions, even prior to the modern industrial/consumer age, the pipeline emissions add up to squat.
A few days ago I published an article about the new alarmist hockey stick by Marcott et al. My take?
It was a statistical-blender 'smoothie,' not related in the least to real world empirical evidence; that the fabricated Marcott hockey stick blade was entirely bogus; and, that this study would likely be eviscerated by the experts.
As predicted, the experts are now concluding this study is not actual objective science. Read here for an expert evisceration of Shaun Marcott's global warming "science."
And, read Steve McIntyre's blog article, where even study author Marcott is now admitting that his bogus hockey stick blade is not "robust," and btw, which was fairly obvious to even most laypersons, including moi.
(Is this why Marcott is admitting to bogosity?)
Unfortunately for Marcott et al., the experts now have the scent of significantly bogus science and they will not be letting go - this study will probably suffer the same fate as Michael Mann's 'Bozo' hockey stick travesty, which even the IPCC was finally forced to jettison.
And good. It serves Marcott right.
GIGO harms the science community and should not be tolerated. "Bad scientists" don't deserve to be published; instead, they deserve to be severely trashed.
(click on images to enlarge - CET & HadCRUT data sources)
Recently, a new simulation of reconstructed proxy temperature records was released with great fanfare and acclaim from the mainstream press. Without any due diligence, the science "journalists" shouted that this was the new and improved "super" hockey stick that proves modern warming is "unprecedented."
Based on the above/adjacent chart, mainstream headlines trumpeted the study with various claims of the "fastest" warming and overtones of end-of-the-world as we know it from dangerous global warming. Some typical brainless MSM examples:
These headlines are similar to the ones that greeted the infamous first hockey stick, which later was proven to be statistically bogus; and so discredited, that the IPCC was forced to jettison it. Based on that last experience, one would think (and hope) the mainstream press would be a little more cautious with hockey stick representations and claims of "unprecedented" but apparently not - gee, what a surprise.
As a collector of graphical paleo-climate reconstructions, it is obvious this study's hockey stick graph is another politically-driven, anti-science, robustly bogus representation of past global temperatures. Per the Marcott et al. scientists' own admissions, the above bogus hockey stick was literally fabricated from a thousand Monte Carlo simulations - figuratively, non-empirical "evidence" produced from a statistical 'smoothie' blender.
Objectively, their above 2,000 y.o. hockey stick simply does not comport with the major, 2,000 y.o., high resolution paleo-reconstructions from around the world.
Similar to the previously discredited, first hockey stick study, the primary purpose of this study's statistical fabrication is to eliminate the known actual temperature peaks of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods - well documented periods of high temperatures over extended time spans. How a "scientist" accomplishes this is easily illustrated using an example - a hockey stick production anatomy lesson.
For this example, the non-hockey stick Central England Temperature (CET) dataset will be used to create an imaginary hockey stick of CET temperatures, similar looking to the one presented by the Marcott et al. study.
1. How to construct the "handle" of the hockey stick
it is necessary to take higher resolution raw data, and then by using
any number of acceptable (and some questionable) "variance suppression" statistical
techniques, transform it into a blended proxy 'smoothie' for the stick's handle.
In essence, higher resolution input needs to be transformed to lower resolution output in order to suppress the temperature peaks and valleys (in the Marcott 11,000+ year analysis, suppressing the Minoan, the Roman and Medieval warming periods is required).
2. How to construct the blade
So, how do you think the blade of the simulated CET chart on the right compares to reality? Clearly, from the chart on the right, it appears that temperatures are relentlessly accelerating, soon to take most of England to their own version of physical climate hell, no? But note that the actual monthly data chart on the left does not portray such acceleration.
Now for real world reality: the actual annual CET temperatures have been declining at a minus 4.4 degree per century trend - that's right, a -4.4° C/century rate over the last 15 years that the simulated blade distorts.
As can easily be seen, the simulated CET's hockey stick's blade is a gross distortion of the climate reality; and the stick's handle completely misrepresents (disappears) the known extremes of the historical CET climate. This is what faux-science simulations do.
Likewise, the same is absolutely true for the Marcott et al. hockey stick - an extreme and gross misrepresentation of climate history and the current temperature trend.
(And btw, for the intellectually curious who don't reside/work in the liberal MSM echo chamber, the Marcott et al. hockey stick stops at 1950 with the spiked 'blade' increase starting at year 1900, which indicates a +0.75°C increase over that 50 years - however, according to the IPCC's own gold standard HadCRUT3 dataset, global annual temperatures during that same period declined by a -0.11°C...what's "screwed" is this blatantly bogus hockey stick, eh.)
In review, the Marcott 'blade' is a farcical depiction of modern temperatures that was entirely fabricated to encourage hysterical fear-mongering by mainstream reporters; and, the low resolution handle, stripped of all climate reality via 'smoothie' blender statistics, was designed to disappear previous significant warming eras.
Finally, Marcott et al. used over 70 temperature datasets that they threw into their statistical 'smoothie' blender. Adjacent is a typical pre-blender dataset they used that exhibits historical climate reality, with all its high and low extremes.
But they needed a hockey stick. So instead of reporting actual climate realities, like this one from New Zealand, they gave the mainstream media a highly manipulated and fabricated low resolution smoothie with a tall, high resolution synthetic straw, as represented by hockey stick chart at the top of this posting.
Needless to say, the money quote from their study's abstract - "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history" - is solely based on their statistical blender for climate-temperature smoothies - and, for the record, that quote is not true, it's not reality, and it's most definitely not actual empirical evidence.
(click on image to enlarge - CO2 data source)
Read here. The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmists have long predicted that increasing CO2 levels will directly cause global warming to reach anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees Celsius higher in the near future. In essence the world's maximum temperatures are being exclusively driven to dangerous heights by CO2.
But is that actually happening?
The most recent empirical evidence clearly indicates that CO2 levels are not driving the average atmospheric, global and/or ocean temperatures dangerously higher. And now comes an analysis of the BEST temperature dataset, which confirms the weak driving force that CO2 appears to be.
This graph has monthly atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed onto plots of the BEST maximum temperatures for the U.S. and a solar activity proxy (i.e. Total Solar Irradiance). The blue maximum temperature plot is in sync (up and down) with the red solar activity curve. Obviously, the ever incessant rise of CO2 levels is not in sync with the up and down movements of temperature variation.
"Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set...The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection...This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale...Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration." [Article by Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs.]
(click on images to enlarge - source)
Read here. Scientists from Europe and Russia reconstructed temperatures from a Kamchatka Peninsula sediment core that contained chironomids. As the chart on the right depicts, the scientists determined that there were extended periods, well before CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels of 350 ppm and greater, when summer temperatures were well above modern temps.
"A paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs Arctic temperatures in Kamchatka, USSR over the past 4,500 years and finds the highest reconstructed temperatures were about 3.8°C warmer than modern temperatures. The authors find "the highest reconstructed temperature reaching 16.8 °C between 3700 and 2800 years before the present," about 3.8°C above "modern temperatures (∼13 °C)." In addition, the data shows temperatures between 2500 - 1100 [during the Medieval and Roman warming periods] were about 1-2°C above modern temperatures of ~13°C." [Larisa Nazarova, Verena de Hoog, Ulrike Hoff, Oleg Dirksen, Bernhard Diekmann 2013: Quaternary Science Reviews]
In this TED presentation, scientist Allan Savory can't resist the temptation to spread the mindless and gratuitous climate fear-mongering that has become so predictable and boring. Putting aside that, his science regarding intelligent land-use is fascinating.
His claims that better livestock policies will "lock" carbon into the soil, thus reversing never-ending, natural global climate change is fundamentally ludicrous, but his research experience does indicate that huge local climate changes are possible.
Indeed, it would appear cows are capable of changing desert-like conditions into a grassy savanah. And from his research, it is obvious that desertification is primarily the result of stupid land-use polices versus alarmist speculations that human CO2 emissions are the cause.
Special note: Prior to this man finally developing his intelligent land-use/livestock policies, he had 40,000 elephants shot in a failed effort to implement policies based on the experts' "consensus" science of the time. Now add to that carnage the millions of African deaths due to the scientific consensus-stupdity regarding DDT, one can then safely surmise that scientists from around the world turned Africa into the proverbial 'killing fields' for both man and beast.
A video well worth the watch.
(click on images to enlarge - sources of data)
The image on the left is the main Hawaiian Island with a red circle denoting the coastal region near the community of Captain Cook, Hawaii. The chart on the right is a plot of satellite data of Captain Cook coastal sea surface heights, and monthly atmospheric CO2 levels, since 1992.
Clearly, per the satellite data, the hysterical IPCC prediction that human CO2 emissions would cause dangerous, accelerating sea level rise and swamp Pacific Ocean islands is totally discredited. Not only has human CO2 not unleashed catastrophic sea level rises (i.e. climate change), human emissions have not unleashed rapidly increasing, catastrophic global warming.
Regarding global sea levels, a new peer reviewed study found that both satellite and tide gauge empirical observations indicate that sea levels are driven by a natural 60-year oscillation. Essentially, sea levels will naturally rise and fall regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"Over the last decade," in the words of Chambers et al. (2012), "numerous papers have commented on the appearance of decadal and longer period fluctuations in select tide gauge records... And in their own study of long tide gauge records in every ocean basin, Chambers et al. find that there is, indeed, "a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th century."...they rightly state that the 60-year oscillation does change "our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than one-cycle of the oscillation." And, therefore, they conclude that "although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year oscillation [italics and bold added]," in further support of which contention they note that "there have been previous periods where the rate was decelerating..." [Don P. Chambers, Mark A. Merrifield, R. Steven Nerem 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Additional severe weather listings
Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.
This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.
The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.
If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.
Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist.
The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.
A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)
Conclusions from the chart:
#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.
#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.
#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.
#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).
#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).
#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.
#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.
#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.
Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:
"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem..."
Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):
"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.
"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008
“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007
Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:
"Section 126.96.36.199.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""
"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."
Note 1: A simple
hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm;
then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause
evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the
upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms
the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms
even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."
Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).
Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).
(click on image to enlarge - source)
Additional severe weather listings
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.
The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.
As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.
Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.
The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).
Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):
“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]
#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.
#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely
#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.
#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.
#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.
(click on image to enlarge - source)
Read here. The U.S. has a research station located at the WAIS divide where scientists associated with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted an analysis to determine the Little Ice Age impact on the southern polar region.
"The authors (Orsi et al.) write that "the Northern Hemisphere experienced a widespread cooling from about 1400 to 1850 C.E., often referred to as the Little Ice Age (hereafter LIA)," which they describe as "the latest of a series of centennial scale oscillations in the climate,"...three researchers, all from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, report determining that "the WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800 C.E.," and they say that "the temperature in the time period 1400-1800 C.E." - which meshes well with the chronology of the LIA in the Northern Hemisphere - "was on average 0.52 ± 0.28°C colder than the last 100-year average."...stating that their result "is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing..." [Anais J. Orsi, Bruce D. Cornuelle, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus] 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
(click on image to enlarge - source)
Complex, mind-boggling multivariate models more often than not produce a huge surplus of garbage output (see chart) that confuses both policymakers and the public, resulting in poor policy choices and failed implementation strategies and tactics.
Combine that typical outcome with the well known phenomenon of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) that is inherent to all computer simultations and the likely result is a manifesto for a big fail.
Some recent public examples of computer complex simulation fiascoes include: computer models causing a 2-year delay in finding the black box from Air France Flight 474; the hysterical computer projections about potential bird flu deaths; the abysmal computer prediction regarding Obama's "stimulus" affect on unemployment; and, of course, the Federal Reserve's 2007 econometric model prediction that completely missed the soon-to-be 'Great Recession' - and don't forget the recent gargantuan fail of these type of "expert" computer models.
So it should come as no surprise that computer attempts at predicting outcomes for the incredibly complex, chaotic world's climate are bound to fail.
To that point, it has been recently observed that past climate model forecasts have been spectacular failures due to bad assumptions and a fanatical blind loyalty to a very weak (lame?) AGW hypothesis. And as the above chart indicates, the newest CMIP5 climate simulations appear to be not much better.
Thus, it is a safe bet that proposing trillion-dollar climate solutions based on the outputs of these new models will prove to be another common sense (no computer needed) predictable disaster. However, that will again be in hindsight for the political elites and mainstream journalists.
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. The empirical research for the unprecedented temperatures during the Roman and Medieval periods continues to build.
As this chart depicts, the New Mexico region of the southwest U.S. experienced considerably warmer temperatures than those of the modern era.
As can be seen, extreme climate change took place frequently in the past, well before any influence of humans on the landscape and the atmosphere from CO2 emissions.
A paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs climate change in central New Mexico, USA over the past 12,800 years and finds mean annual temperatures were ~1°C warmer than the present during the Roman Warming Period 2,000 years ago, the Medieval Warming Period 1,000 years ago, as well as during other unnamed warming periods in the past. The paper also shows cold periods were relatively wet, and warm periods relatively dry, the opposite of the claims of climate alarmists. Furthermore, the paper shows that mean annual precipitation today is neither dry nor wet in comparison to the precipitation extremes over the past 4,000 years. [Stephen A. Hall, William L. Penner 2012: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
(click on images to enlarge - data sources)
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
#5. The spectacular documented failure of climate agency computer models is likely due to the erroneous (i.e., overly high) sensitivity parameters,
#6. 100% of climate scientists would agree that the current empirical evidence does not support the proclaimed runaway, tipping point acceleration that was supposedly taking place. ;-)
(click on image to enlarge - source)
Nope, we're not speaking of Obama's first birthplace, the one before he decided to run for U.S. president, although Kenya does have a warm and humid climate.
Instead, the research was done in the Hawaii area, the newer birthplace of Obama after his U.S. Senate election. Specifically, the study was done at the scenic Kealia Pond, Maui.
These scientists wanted to determine what impact the MCA had on the tropical island, where the UN's IPCC scientists had claimed there was no impact. As scientists dedicated to the scientific truth, they ignored the IPCC's dictates (i.e., flimsy reasoning) and pursued their research.
"Based on "high-resolution palynological, charcoal, and sedimentological analysis of a sediment core from Kealia Pond, Maui, coupled with archaeological and historical records,"... Pau et al. developed "a detailed chronology of vegetation and climate change since before human arrival."...Most pertinent was the three researchers' finding that "a shift from dry to wet climate conditions marked the beginning of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) as evidenced by a precipitation reconstruction based on a pollen abundance index." They note, for example, that over the 2500 years of their record "there have been two major climatic events: first the MCA (AD 800-1300), followed by the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850)."...In the case of the early inhabitants of Maui, Pau et al. write that "an increase in forest resources during this wet climate interval coincided with rapid Polynesian population growth," which suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity for them..." [Stephanie Pau, Glen M. MacDonald, Thomas W. Gillespie 2012: Annals of the Association of American Geographers]
Regardless of which falsehood of Obama's birthplace one chooses to believe, there is no choice concerning the truth regarding the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Its impact has been substantiated by reams of empirical research and peer reviewed articles. The Medieval Warming Period impact was immense, stretching across the entire world, even touching the tropical islands of Hawaii.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
Despite many climate scientists now being forced to reconsider their runaway "tipping point" AGW hypothesis of high climate sensitivity, and the U.S. public placing a theoretical climate change as a very low priority, there remain those political elites and mainstream "journalists" bitterly clinging to their blatantly incorrect, non-scientific, irrational (insane?) fears of "scary" global warming.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
Additional modern temperature charts.
- As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
- In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
- The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
- Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
- All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
- Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
(click on image to enlarge - source)
The current research coming out of the polar regions is confirmed by a group of European scientists utilizing the latest research technology in a non-polar region.
As can be seen, this new research from Esper et al. is depicted adjacent - clearly, summer temperatures during the Roman period, sans consumer/industrial human CO2 emissions, were significantly warmer than the current period.
"The authors developed 587 high-resolution wood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris (scots Pine) trees of northern Sweden and Finland to form a long-term maximum latewood density (MXD) record stretching from 138 BC to AD 2006, wherein all MXD measurements were derived from high-precision X-ray radiodensitometry...And in comparing their results with the earlier temperature reconstructions of others, they say that their MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction "sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology,"...the four researchers state that their new temperature history "provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth." [Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank 2012: Global and Planetary Change]
Conclusions: As the irrefutable empirical research mounts, it is becoming untenable for politicians, regulating bureaucrats and taxpayer funded scientists to maintain the falsehood that modern global warming has been unprecedented. The latest objective, scientific research from across the world confirms that modern warming is not unusual, nor dangerous. In addition, the preponderance of new research indicates that both the Roman and Medieval Periods were warmer.
Unlike the 1950's, when a severe weather event was just called 'bad weather,' now days these events are identified as climate change or climate disruption, caused by humans. Every new hurricane, blizzard, flood and forest fire is quickly labeled as the new normal, which infers a similar event/disaster must never have happened before.
Unfortunately, for the climate ignorant, the 1950's were not an era of stable climate conditions and unchanging temperatures. Although the black & white TV entertainment was fairly simple back then, that period's climate and weather were just as complex...and deadly... as our current 21st century variety.
Below is a list of early 1950's "climate change" events and disasters that were originally identified as bad weather; and, interestingly, climate issues the previous generation of scientists were worried about at that time. A simple review of this list provokes, justifiably, a common sense climate-epiphany: my god, it's the same old, same old.
(click on charts to enlarge - data sources)
The chart's starting point is January 1880, which represents the first data point (pink circle) of a 30-year temperature change, from January 1850 to January 1880. The chart's last plot point (green circle) is the difference from December 1982 to December 2012.
The black curve is the simple 5-year average (60-month moving) of all the 30-year changes. And the light grey curve is the plot of monthly CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels from 1880 through 2012.
Per this gold-standard empirical evidence, one can safely conclude the following:
#1. CO2 levels have consistently increased, with short pauses, over this extended period.
#2. 30-year temperature changes peaked both in 1939 and 1998, and then subsequently declined indicating a more powerful-than-CO2, non-greenhouse gas influence at work.
#3. Higher CO2 levels are not causing runaway, accelerating, rapid, irreversible, dangerous and/or tipping point long-term global temperature changes, which is contrary to all conventional and "consensus" IPCC expert opinions and their climate models.
#4. The simple 5-year moving average curve during the very recent past indicates a declining period for 30-year changes, possibly signalling an extended cooling phase is upon us.
#5. The 30-year temperature changes, prior to the post-1960 consumer/industrial surge in human CO2 emissions, rival those of the modern up/down 30-year changes, in terms of amount, duration and speed.
#6. Long-term (30 year) global temperature change appears to follow an up and down pattern - an oscillation phenomenon, so to speak, that occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
#7. Since this oscillation is not being produced by higher CO2 levels, then some natural phenomenon is likely driving long-term global temperature change, overwhelming the apparent trivial impact of CO2.
There are any number of natural climate phenomena working singularly, or in concert, that are responsible for climate change. An example of one such natural pattern is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) that is adjacent and shown here.
As can be seen, the AMO pattern is curiously similar to the above 30-year global temperature change plot of peaks and valleys.
As NOAA scientists have established, this powerful, climate-changing oscillation has been identified in historical paleoclimate proxies, confirming that human CO2 has nothing to do with it.
And the AMO is just one of many natural climate forces. Another powerful, natural climate-change phenomena that dwarfs the global warming impact of human CO2 is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which is best explained by this expert.
Additional temperature and climate charts.
Heidi Cullen is at it again - a climate scientist seemingly devoted to assuring her audience that she is not the sharpest tool in the weather shed.
We have posted about Heidi before, recognizing that her prediction skills and climate knowledge are not exactly at the 'Wow!' level...closer to the face palm level, one thinks.
Since she is the vice-president of communications for Climate Central though, I suggest Heidi forgoes Twitter, and instead utilizes her finer points and present her "hot" global warming proposition on David Letterman's desk. Maybe she could start her pitch with "my sea anomalies are warming, Dave."
Hey, bimbos do better visually, no?
(click on images - source)
During 2012, parts of Spain experienced devastating floods. This terrible weather event was immediately claimed as more proof that climate change, due to global warming, is causing extreme violent disasters.
But are these "climate change" claims accurate, based on the latest scientific research or just more green-sharia propaganda?
Per the 2012 peer reviewed Spanish research of Barredo et al., the following was determined:
"..."the absence of a significant positive trend in the adjusted insured flood losses in Spain," which suggests, in their words, that "the increasing trend in the original losses is explained by socio-economic factors, such as the increases in exposed insured properties, value of exposed assets and insurance penetration." And they add that "there is no residual signal that remains after adjusting for these factors," so that "the analysis rules out a discernible influence of anthropogenic climate change on insured losses," which they say "is consistent with the lack of a positive trend in hydrologic floods in Spain in the last 40 years." [J. I. Barredo, D. Saurí, M. C. Llasat 2012: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences]
Additional EU research that disproves the anti-CO2 propaganda of IPCC-related "scientists":
France - "...Wilhelm et al. (2012) say their study shows that "sediment sequences from high altitude lakes can provide reliable records of flood-frequency and intensity-patterns related to extreme precipitation events," closing with the warning that "such information is required to determine the possible impact of the current phase of global warming." And when this warning is heeded, it is clearly seen that the climate-model-inspired claim that global warming will lead to "an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of such events" - would appear to be just the opposite of what is suggested by Wilhelm et al.'s real-world study..."
Germany - "In light of these several observations -- plus the fact that "most decadal-scale climate-change impacts on flooding (Petrow and Merz, 2009) are small compared to historic peaks in flood occurrence (Mudelsee et al., 2006)" -- Bormann et al. (2011) conclude their report by stating that these significant facts "should be emphasized in the recent discussion on the effect of climate change on flooding." And if this is done, there is no other conclusion to be drawn but that the warming experienced in Germany over the past century has not led to unprecedented flooding throughout the country. In fact, it has not led to any increase in flooding."
United Kingdom - "As a result of this multifaceted endeavor, they (Macklin et al. (2005)) determined that "the majority of the largest and most widespread recorded floods in Great Britain [had] occurred during cool, moist periods," and that "comparison of the British Holocene palaeoflood series ... with climate reconstructions from tree-ring patterns of subfossil bog oaks in northwest Europe also suggests that a similar relationship between climate and flooding in Great Britain existed during the Holocene, with floods being more frequent and larger during relatively cold, wet periods."
"...they (Hannaford and Marsh (2008)) state that longer river flow records from five additional catchments they studied "provide little compelling evidence for long-term (>50 year) trends but show evidence of pronounced multi-decadal fluctuations." Lastly, they add that "in comparison with other indicators, there were fewer trends in flood magnitude," and that "trends in peaks-over-threshold frequency and extended-duration maxima at a gauging station were not necessarily associated with increasing annual maximum instantaneous flow."
Switzerland - "Reiterating the fact that "the findings of this study suggest that the frequency of extreme summer-autumn precipitation events (i.e. flood events) and the associated atmospheric pattern in the Eastern Swiss Alps was not enhanced during warmer (or drier) periods," Stewart et al. (2011) acknowledge that "evidence could not be found that summer-autumn floods would increase in the Eastern Swiss Alps in a warmer climate of the 21st century," in contrast to the projections of the regional climate models that have suggested otherwise."
Italy - "Diodato et al. (2008) undertook a detailed analysis of "the Calore River Basin (South Italy) erosive rainfall using data from 425-year-long series of both observations (1922-2004) and proxy-based reconstructions (1580-1921)." This work revealed pronounced inter-decadal variations...researchers write that "in recent years, climate change (generally assumed as synonymous with global warming) has become a global concern and is widely reported in the media." And with respect to the concern that both droughts and floods will become both more frequent and more severe as the planet warms, they say their study indicates that "climate in the Calore River Basin has been largely characterized by naturally occurring weather anomalies in past centuries (long before industrial CO2 emissions), not only in recent years," and that there has been a "relevant smoothing" of such events during the modern era."
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
Taxpayer-funded climate scientists and ideologue politicians have continuously predicted that the globe will suffer from dangerous global warming; and they claimed that human CO2 emissions acted as the world's climate thermostat.
As the adjacent chart reveals, the IPCC's own temperature gold-standard (HadCRUT3) refutes the "experts" and "elites" hysterical, anti-science prognostications:
#1. The global temperature dataset clearly indicates that the world has exhibited a slight global cooling trend since the spike in temps from the super El Niño of 1997/98. That's 180 months (15 years) of non-dangerous global warming.
#2. The chart's thin black line is a plot of the monthly changes in CO2 levels. The correlation between monthly temperature and CO2 changes ranges from slim to none - this supposed thermostat relation of CO2 to temperatures has a ludicrously low R2 of 0.01. CO2 is not only not a "thermostat," it's likely not even a major climate forcing, per the actual data.
#3. While global temperatures have been slightly cooling, the global changes in monthly CO2 levels have been slightly increasing (note smooth grey curve - a 2nd order fit).
#4. Simply stated, this actual IPCC gold-standard empirical evidence robustly refutes all the anti-science predictions/claims of climate "experts" and alarmist "elites."
And, as we are currently witnessing, the green-sharia, anti-human fanatics are now having to do some serious crawling-back from their previous anti-CO2 agenda and bogus-science blinders to the climate reality.
(click on charts to enlarge- data sources for 'C3' chart)
U.S. scientists have never been so consistently wrong, while so vehemently denying they have been wrong, despite all the objective empirical evidence that clearly shows they have been wrong - partisanship science run amok.
Case in point: climate scientists' claims that higher CO2 levels cause accelerated warming and dangerous climate change, resulting in more severe and frequent weather disasters, per their C-AGW hypothesis.
Note: The good news? There's at least one progressive Democrat scientist who refuses to parrot the politicized anti-science agenda; instead, he consistently challenges the misinformation emanating from Obama science agencies.
(click on graphs to enlarge - data sources)
As major mainstream news outlets are starting to report, global warming has essentially disappeared, replaced with a slight cooling trend in recent years. Taxpayer-funded climate scientists are finally being forced to go on record stating the obvious - their global warming predictions were incorrect.
Their favorite euphemism to describe what is happening is that global warming is at a "standstill." Even the most infamous climate reality denier has started using that terminology to describe a decade of non-existent warming - he can't quite yet bring himself to say global cooling.
Three of the above charts (top-left, top-right and bottom-left) represent the state-of-the-art models used by the "consensus" climate experts. As seen, all three have been spectacularly wrong through the end of 2012.
These three models (World Climate Research Programme, NASA-GISS and the IPCC) are CO2-centric climate models - global warming and climate change are primarily driven by levels of atmospheric CO2. As a result, they have long predicted dangerous and accelerating global warming for Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces - and it bears repeating, they have been spectacularly wrong.
The majority of scientists now agree that these "consensus" science models are flawed (at least 97% of scientists would agree ;-) and are incapable of accurately predicting global temperatures. Thus, newer models based on non-CO2 drivers of climate are starting to see the light of day, so-to-speak.
One such newer model is represented by the bottom-right chart above. This model appears to have better global temperature prediction capabilities, which also happens to verify that CO2 is not the principal climate driver, as scientists on the taxpayer dole claim (and misrepresent).
Additional temperature and climate charts.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened.
The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates.
As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated.
As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span.
In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth.
Additional global temperature and climate charts.
Note: There was a cosmetic typo in original chart. Abreviation 'RSS' has now been replaced with correct abbreviation 'HC3'. Thank you, Burt Rutan - would not have noticed it until I saw your email.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
The IPCC's CAGW hypothesis necessitates that troposphere humidity increases as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase. Simply stated (this is not rocket science):
In fact, as seen, the atmospheric humidity is decreasing over time while CO2 levels increase - the exact opposite of all climate model and "consensus" expert predictions.
And, as noted before, atmospheric temperatures remain flat to slightly cooling over the last 15 years despite the large increase in CO2 levels - again, the exact opposite of model predictions.
Additional greenhouse, climate and temperature charts.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)
Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).
Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?
It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.
The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.
None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).
To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.
Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.
There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.
Other modern temperature charts.
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
The UN's IPCC continues to claim that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 levels. This high sensitivity, in combination with the mythical positive feedbacks, will thus supposedly increase global warming some 4 to 6 degrees centigrade by year 2100.
However, the actual temperature data do not support this speculative AGW hypothesis. If the climate was highly sensitive to CO2, then the adjacent plot of data would look substantially different.
Because of the huge increase over the 50 years ending 2012, the global temperature increase should be significantly larger than the previous 50-year period ending 1962. Clearly, levels of atmospheric CO2 are not as all powerful as the IPCC fear-mongering would have us believe.
In fact, despite an increase of CO2 levels that was 4 times larger than the previous 50-year period, the global temperatures ending 2012 increased less, suggesting that the climate sensitivity to CO2 ranges from lame to very weak.