Let's start with a couple of known-knowns: 1st, Hollywood is in the business of make-believe and fantasies; 2nd, Jessica Alba is definitely a drop-dead, freaking gorgeous Hollywood actress.
Of course, Jessica might be very pleasing to the eye, as many actresses and actors are, but inherited beauty genetics does not mean one will necessarily have a high IQ (or even impressive acting abilities).
As with Hollywood's autism-vaccine embarrassment, the "man-causes-all-climate-change" science is straight out of the comic book movie science. Bob Tisdale does an admirable and exhaustive take down of the comic-like climate science fantasy that Jessica and other Hollywood anti-science stars hope to propagandize in the forthcoming Showtime faux-documentary, named "Years of Living Dangerously."
(Is this just an obvious case of her wanting bigger and more prestigious roles that has driven Jessica to lie down on the 'climate porn' casting couch?)
Anywho, as Tisdale points out, the empirical evidence is indisputable: modern bad weather events are not unusual. In fact, the frequency of extreme weather has actually decreased over the last decade.
Sooo, let's review here: Jessica and her Hollywood-buddy scientists stars completely ignore the well established scientific evidence, and instead, rely exclusively on their consumption of hysterical daily TV news-bogosity. Their TV-science approach to weather completely eliminates the 'forest' of severe weather events over decades (even centuries), as reported by the press at the time. This superficial Hollywood "knowledge" and shallow intellectual curiosity conveniently ignores all historical context, especially when it facilitates cherry-picking propaganda advantages.
Well, enough of gorgeous Jessica Alba and Holly-dufus chatter. Back to climate reality and that boring empirical-based science.
Previously, 'C3' published an article that documented what NOAA's science was showing: that the celebrated Kyoto agreement failed spectacularly in stopping human CO2 emissions, and that those "expert" global warming predictions of CO2's impact on global temperatures were significantly wrong.
Since 1979 (when satellite temperature measurements became standard practice), the global human CO2 emissions added to the atmosphere has been some 24 billion tons/per year, on average.
Despite that incredible amount of human CO2 over the last 15 years, the RSS satellite dataset has experienced a per century trend of only +0.24°C - essentially flat. In contrast, for the prior 15 years, the per century trend was +3.0°C. The glaring global temperature deceleration over the last 15 years is why many experts are now thinking Earth may be entering a global cooling phase.
The above chart depicts global temperature change in another manner. What does a percentage change in CO2 levels do to a 3-year temperature change? Per Hollywood fantasy movie-science, would an actual 1.5% increase of CO2 levels cause accelerating, runaway temperature change as alarmists contend?
To the data we go. The chart's green curve represents the actual moving 3-year increases in atmospheric CO2 levels - those increases ranged from +0.63% to 1.99 %, averaging 1.43% over the 383 periods (expressed in decimal format on chart - a hint for Jessica, 1.0% = 0.01; 20% = 0.2, etc).
The blue dots represent the 3-year temperature change. Look for the black 'X' on the chart - that is the 3-year temperature difference between November 2010 and November 2013 (a minus 0.18°C).
Look closely at those blue dots. Do you see accelerating warming? Temperature changes that exhibit the predicted, disastrous, in-your-face, positive trend upward? (If you do, you're as dumb as Jessica, btw.)
In fact, that red curve on the above chart confirms your own eyeballs. It's a 6th order trend fit of the observed 3-year temperature changes. The recent trend is down, opposite of the "accelerating" the-oceans-are-going-to-boil temperature change IPCC experts have long predicted and Hollywood has fantasized about.
So what does this simple plot of climate empirical measurements mean? The obvious is that temperature change (blue dots) has no relationship to the constant increases in CO2 levels (green curve). In actual statistical terms, the correlation between the 3-year temperature change and the 3-year per cent changes in CO2 levels is a measly 0.168. (Note: a similar weak correlation result exists for the NASA Land/Sea dataset since 1979.)
Simply put, the visible and statistical relationship are both negligible, at best.
The chart's empirical evidence is merciless. Global temperature change variation is figuratively all-over-the-map, from positive to negative extremes while CO2 change remains within a very constant narrow range.
The science conclusions are unequivocal. Human CO2 emissions are not causing the hypothetical, accelerated global warming. CO2 is not causing a 'tipping point' temperature change that continuously increases. Human CO2 emissions are not the acclaimed 'thermostat' or 'control knob' or 'dial' that bureaucrats and politicians can somehow tweak to control Earth's climate and weather. Eliminating human CO2 emissions will not stop climate variation, nor extreme weather events.
In conclusion: as actual climate scientists would say to the anti-science, low IQ, beautiful Hollywood crowd: "it's Nature, stupid."