Since 1998 the IPCC's HadCRUT reports global cooling - neither Nasa's GISS nor HadCRUT report "dangerous," nor "accelerating," nor "runaway," nor "tipping point" nor "irreversible" global warming
Unfortunately, almost every family has to suffer with the typical "useful idiot" family member during the holidays who has relied on MSNBC, ABC (Australia), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC or CNN for their climate information. Soooo...below is a Christmas stocking stuffer to be pulled out at the appropriate time when the family idiot starts spewing the mainstream media left / liberal / progressive / Democrat climate anti-science.
The IPCC's climate reports' gold-standard for global averages is the HadCRUT temperature dataset. Since the end of 1997, the HadCRUT global average shows an actual global cooling trend, not warming (-0.03C degrees/century). And since the end of 2000, this IPCC gold-standard has global cooling trend increasing to a -0.6C degree/century. (click on charts to enlarge)
From the above, we can surmise the following:
1. Despite record setting human CO2 emissions over the past decade, they have not caused "dangerous," "accelerating," "runaway," "tipping point" or "irreversible" global warming
2. Per the IPCC gold-standard, a slight global cooling trend has developed since the end of 1997, and is more prominent since the end of 2000
3. Despite two large El Nino (extreme warming) events since 1997, the global temperatures per the IPCC gold-standard have trended down (through November 2011)
4. None of the IPCC's climate models predicted deceleration of global warming, let alone the actual global cooling
5. Whether it's the HadCRUT or GISS or NCDC temperature trends shown above, "accelerating" global warming is not reality - the opposite is reality
6. A worst case warming scenario based on recent trends (GISS or NCDC, not HadCRUT) might range from a +0.3C to +0.9C warming by year 2100 (trends are not predictions)
7. The climate sensitivity to CO2 atmospheric levels has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC
8. The hysterically claimed climate temperature "tipping point" is just that - hysteria
9. Natural climate and/or cyclical phenomenon has likely had a much greater influence on global temperatures than the immense human CO2 emissions
10. There is no "consensus" among HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC regarding global temperatures
With our listing of both the GISS and NCDC trends above (in addition to HadCRUT), one may wonder why they are not considered the IPCC's gold-standard. Well, regarding Nasa's GISS, a scientist from GISS has stated the following to an USA Today journalist:
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [HadCRUT] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
So, even the GISS folks hardly view their global temperature dataset as being the gold-standard, why should the IPCC?
Regarding the NOAA/NCDC temperature series, a recent analysis of their dataset revisions show a continuous monthly adjustment effort of historical temperatures that signify more a political agenda versus an impartial science objective. Amazingly, in the month of November 2011 alone, NCDC has published at least 4 different versions of their temperature dataset.
More importantly, the current NOAA chief has turned the science agency into a political and global warming hothouse, where facts and evidence are fabricated or subject to ludicrous revisionism for green political purposes. NOAA has become a science joke and the IPCC can ill afford hitching their wagon to another Green Mafia controlled outfit. Thus, no "gold-standard" for the NCDC temperature dataset.
That leaves the HadCRUT dataset as the gold-standard, which, by the way, finds the globe cooling, not warming - hmmm...did we say that already?