A group of scientists who researched past climate conditions near the coast of Japan made an interesting discovery.
As the article reports, the climate in that area has not experienced any of the hypothetical CO2-caused warming that "experts" claim is global, extreme and accelerating.
The chart associated with the peer-reviewed study makes it pretty clear that dangerous and unprecedented warming is absent from this part of the world.
The study's authors used tree-ring samples from Japan and Russia. Their proxy reconstruction even has a fitted trend (see red curve) that suggests temperatures there seem cyclical and being driven by natural cyclical forces. Those are thought to include ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings. These proxies usually come from widely scattered locations, with probably a rather sparse number of samples. In addition, tree rings don't provide a daily or monthly climate recording, unlike thermometer instruments. Yet, at the end of the day, scientists can produce a temperature record and trends over extended periods from an exceptionally low minimum of datapoints, and then their results are widely accepted by the climate science community.
Sometimes one wonders about these studies.
That said, these scientists identified another region of the world where dangerous and extreme warming rates are AWOL.
Recently, multiple outlets chose to report to their readers and viewers that February 2016 temperatures were "astronomical" and "strange." Yet for a few hundred million people living in two of the leading industrial/consumer nations of the world, the February temperatures were definitely not astronomical, nor strange.
US February Temps (click on)
UK February Temps (click on)
From the U.S. and UK climate agencies, the above two charts plot the absolute temperature levels for the respective countries over the most recent 20 years, plus the global CO2 levels for February.
In the U.S., the February temperature was warm, but not exceptional; and not even the warmest February, especially when put into the context of 5% error bars.
In the UK, the populace experienced February temperatures that were rather well below average for the last 20 years.
As others have noted, the media frenzy regarding "astronomical" represent just more absurdities from alarmist advocacy by "journalists."
Obviously, the two above charts reveal the ludicrous terminology "astronomical" is not really global. Most of any "strange" surface warming likely was generated in regions of the world where there exists an exceptional sparsity of thermometers - in other words, probably the warmest surface regions were based on a given climate agency's strange-simulations.
And it would seem that continuously rising CO2 levels have had little influence on February temperatures in these industrialized countries. As the majority of experts agree, any high February 2016 regional surface and atmospheric temperatures were the direct result of a natural weather El Nino phenomenon in the the Pacific.
Finally, for those interested in the linear trends for both charts, the U.S. February temperatures are cooling at a robust -15.2°F per century pace; the UK February temps are no slacker as they are cooling at -7.2°C per century rate. Indeed, in the face of huge CO2 emissions, both the UK and the U.S. over the last 20 years exhibit a significant deceleration of temperature change warming.
Strange, does the all-powerful CO2 just ignore months starting with 'F'?
Note: Source of US and UK absolute February temperatures; source of February CO2 levels. Excel used to plot the line and bar charts and means; built-in Excel chart function for 5% error bars displayed on charts and linear trends calculated. Warning: linear trends should not be interpreted as a prediction(s).
The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.
Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.
Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.
Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.
[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]
Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.
Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.
Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.
This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses.
Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).
Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.
How can this be one might ask?
Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.
Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.
The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.
The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.
Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.
This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.
In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)
As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.
Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.
Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.
The short version: NOAA's latest empirical evidence reveals that last 25 year period of global warming is not exceptional, nor unprecedented. Unexpectedly, NOAA's own evidence debunks their own global warming propaganda that they claim is fact.
Yes, the warming isn't exceptional but the irony certainly is.
NOAA is well known to aggressively push the misleading myth of a dangerous modern warming rate from CO2, and that this rapid warming can only be man-made, not a result of natural forces.
Yet its own temperature dataset proves past natural global warming rates of earlier periods are similar and as powerful.
And of course, NOAA always conveniently forgets about the substantial warming and climate change periods of the historical and geological past, which far exceed what NOAA has reported over the last 25 years.
Moving on to the long version of this analysis.....
(click on any chart to enlarge)
The long version: Unprecedented modern warming? A simple factcheck of NOAA's temp information proves otherwise.
With a multitude of politicos, greens, activists, pundits, journalists, and wildly uninformed celebrities jointly wringing their hands over 2015 being the hottest ever, it's beyond empirical doubt that the rate of the last 25 years of warming is not unique.
Yes, in a nutshell, it's warmer today than 25 years ago, but that's to be expected due to the 150+ year natural rebound in temperatures since the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
Putting aside the overused "hottest" adjective, does NOAA's empirical measurement prove that modern warming is significantly different than past natural warming? Have the last 25 years warmed a quantifiably greater amount than prior periods?
To the charts of NOAA empirical evidence to compare two 25-year climate periods of global warming.
Chart #1: For ease of comparison, the earlier 20th century monthly anomaly sub-dataset was offset so as to start at exactly the same anomaly point as the modern sub-dataset. When that is done, it is easier to visually match the similarities/differences of the two warming periods.
Despite their obvious differences in anomaly variation, these two distinct periods reflect similar outcomes over their respective 25 years. Even though the earlier 20th century period (1919 to 1943) experienced little in the way of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, its monthly warming anomaly increase is almost a perfect match to the last 25 years, ending 2015.
The chart's fitted trends (2nd order polynomial) reveal the earlier period with a closing warming rate that is accelerating away from the modern fitted trend.
Chart #2 plots the calculated linear trends for both 25-year periods. The difference in 'per century' trends is rather minuscule, especially when considering the massive greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1950. Objectively, the small trend increase of +0.40 degrees per century over the last 25 years is well within known natural variation.
Clearly, any warming impact of CO2 emissions has barely surpassed the per century trend produced by natural climatic forces from 1919-1943. Based on this empirical evidence, a robust conclusion would be that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is exceptionally insignificant.
Chart #3 compares the 5-year average warming for each period, using the same starting anomaly point. From the start, the ‘Modern’ 5-yr average rises much faster; but in an exceptional (dare we say "unprecedented") spurt, the ‘Earlier’ period 5-yr average closes the gap to a mere +0.03 degree warming difference at the end of 25 years.
Based on that tiny difference, one can fairly surmise that the huge CO2 emissions production over the last 25 years has not distinguished itself as climatically significant versus natural variation.
And it is interesting (and somewhat unexpected) that both the ‘Earlier’ and ‘Modern' periods had extended pauses, which are noted on the chart #3.
Chart #4 depicts the cumulative temperature change for the full 25 years (300 months) ending in 1943 and 2015; plus, their respective changes in CO2 levels. Per NOAA’s own empirical dataset, the earlier 20th century warming cumulative amount was actually greater than the modern era period ending in December 2015 — and remember, the December 2015 temperatures anomaly just had an incredible surge due to the current El Niño peak.
In conclusion, as stated in the first paragraph, modern warming over the last 25 years is not exceptional, nor unprecedented in spite of the gigantic accumulation of atmospheric CO2 emissions during the fossil fuel era. Based on real world climate and the actual evidence, simulated predictions of future dangerous warming remain without any scientific substance.
Notes: The period of 1919-1943 was chosen for analysis and comparison due to its visual pattern similarities to the last 25 years ending December 2015. Source of NOAA global temperature dataset; modern and historical CO2 datasets. Excel was used to plot and calculate trends/averages for all charts. Chart#1 had 1919-1943 anomaly plot adjusted to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 period; chart#2 linear trends are based off plots of chart#1; chart#3 uses 5-year averages calculated from each period's anomaly dataset and then the 1919-1943 5yr average was adjusted (i.e. offset) to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 5yr average; chart#4 cumulative differences calculation: the December 31, 1943 anomaly minus the December 31, 1918 anomaly and the December 31, 2015 anomaly minus the December 31, 1990 anomaly (both calculations covering a full 300 months).
Empirical evidence is always a good disinfectant for doomsday fears and conspiracy theories. And it's no different for the exuberant, catastrophic hyperbole, irrational and anti-science prognostications being pronounced on a daily basis regarding global warming.
The below charts of empirical evidence are another 'bolus' of disinfectant for the climate change hyperbole - hyperbole that is pushing both climate science research and debate to the ludicrous, for example.
Chart #1 (click on any chart to enlarge)
Chart #1 is one that will never be shown by the establishment climate science community, nor by the climate-doomsday alarmists.
The chart plots the absolute global averages for both surfaces and atmospheric temperatures since the major 1998 El Niño peak. It is a peak-to-peak chart through December 2015 that reveals absolute global temperatures to be on a fairly stable path over the last 18 years.
Global temperatures move up and down in a narrow band, which is why the rolling 5-year averages are essentially flat. This stability has occurred in spite of the large increase in CO2 levels (see black dots on chart) during the same time frame.
Chart #2 is a plot of the same time period but using the familiar temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures.
Climate scientists and alarmists strongly favor anomalies for their lack of context. With anomalies, the public sees frightening large temperature spikes without realizing that real-world temperatures, while extremely variable, rarely remain outside a very narrow climate range - anomalies don't reveal the narrow range context that the absolutes show in Chart #1.
It's important to remember that in everyday life the public depends on the reporting of absolute temperatures. For example, the TV weather announcer would provide the following style of summation: "tomorrow will range from a cool of 45 degrees in the morning to a high of 73 degrees by late afternoon" - they don't state that tomorrow's temperatures will have an anomaly of +0.03 degree over the average baseline by late afternoon.
Simply stated, they use absolutes when reporting to the public, not meaningless anomalies. The absolute temperature degrees provide valuable context that allows the public, be they urban commuters, regional bureaucrats or rural farmers, to make informed and rational decisions.
With that said, it is certainly true that anomalies are invaluable for research, but for scientists to employ them for communications with the general public is in a reality a form of lying by context-omission.
By avoiding the use of absolute temperatures, the establishment can thus produce the desired agenda narrative, in a context vacuum, that our world is "rapidly warming" in order to persuade the public of favored energy/taxation policies.
But as this series of charts reveal, the context provided by the absolute temperatures is critically important to determining if the "rapidly warming" doomsday fears are rational and contextually evidence-based.
Charts #3 (absolutes) and #4 (anomalies) are plots of the same surface and atmospheric temperature datasets but for a different period: 1880 through 2015.
Charts #5 and #6 are more of the same, except the plots start at January 1979, the first full year of satellite temperature measurements and empirical 24/7 global measurement evidence - 37 years, as of the end of 2015.
With that long introduction out of the way, what do these 6 charts tell the policymakers, the taxpayers and the general public?
First, atmospheric CO2 levels have been climbing, relentlessly.
Second, the NOAA surface temperature dataset indicates that the globe has been steadily warming since 1880, but in a sporadic fashion.
The long-term warming trend since the Little Ice Age amounts to +0.7C degrees/century, per NOAA. The shorter term surface warming since 1998 has been at a rate of +1.4C/century; and the atmosphere has actually cooled at a -0.1C/century rate since 1998.
Third, climate change and its variation, as represented by global temperatures in Chart #4, is evident since the first decade of observations. Climate change 'has', and 'is', and 'will' happen - it is a natural phenomenon that happens.
Fourth, although the satellite evidence clearly indicates that the atmosphere has warmed since 1979, that warming has stalled since the 1998 peak - Chart #2's 5-year average for the RSS dataset vividly shows the 'Pause/Hiatus/Stall', equal to a cooling rate of -0.1/century.
Both the surface and atmospheric actual temperature changes are significantly below the estimates predicted due to the large CO2 increases.
And this fourth observation is especially critical.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis states the greenhouse emissions will warm the lower atmosphere, which will then result in a subsequent warming of Earth's surface. Yet, since 1998 the surface has warmed (more on that surface "warming" here and here) while the atmosphere had not warmed at all through 2015 - this is a major AGW hypothesis disconnect.
In addition, the AGW hypothesis assumes that increasing greenhouse gases will cause the triggering of major positive feedbacks that in turn will cause dangerous, accelerated warming in the atmosphere and then the surface. In reality, the "dangerous, accelerated warming" has not taken place, anywhere.
Ergo, CO2 emissions are not resulting in the "consensus" predicted positive feedbacks.
Since there is no evidence of the doomsday positive feedback, which the climate experts and their computer models assume, the predictions of doomsday climate catastrophes actually remain without a sliver of requisite empirical evidence or scientific proof.
Notes: Datasets used: NOAA; RSS; CO2-modern; CO2-proxy. Excel was used to plot charts from the government's own climate data.
Even with the strong surge in global temperatures from the current El Niño and from the surge of 2015 global warming exaggeration and fabrication (here, here and here), there remains the strange case of establishment climate science models failing to meet expected outcomes.
Case in point. This chart replicates the famous climate model output presented to Congress and the world in 1988 by James Hansen, the then chief climatologist of the NASA/GISS climate research unit. (Here is an image of the original chart.)
The climate model predicted annual temperature changes would follow the bright green curve if greenhouse gases (GHGs) were not curtailed. GHGs include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride - the latter 3 are known as fluorinated greenhouse gases.
The orange curve represents the predicted annual temperature changes if the GHG growth rate were reduced over time.
The chart's cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted annual temperature changes if GHGs were curtailed by governmental polices and regulations so that year 2000 and beyond had a net growth rate equal to zero.
From the Hansen 1998 testimony, there is this statement:
"We have considered cases ranging from business as usual [BAU], which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
From the 1988 Hansen peer-reviewed article that supports his testimony, there is this statement:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' [chart's green curve] assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' [chart's orange curve] has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' [chart's cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
So.....since NASA's top climate expert's testimony, what has happened with the GHG growth and growth rates?
From a recent U.S. EPA report on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, there is the following:
"Global non-CO2 emissions are projected to increase significantly between 2005 and 2030 unless further actions are taken to reduce emissions...total emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have nonetheless increased."
From the latest IPCC AR5 climate report, we know the following about GHGs (a synopsis here):
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
In addition, the combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Regarding fossil fuel CO2 emissions, specifically (CO2 data here): NASA and Hansen's 'BAU' Scenario A was proposed at a time when CO2 emissions were growing: since 1972, the 15 years ending 1987 the world emitted 285 billion tonnes of CO2. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.2% per year for those 15 years prior to Hansen's 1988 testimony.
In contrast, for the 15 years ending 2014, the world has emitted a total of 467 billion tonnes - that is growth some 1.6 times greater than Hansen's 'BAU'. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.9% per year for the period since 1999.
Without any doubt, both empirically and objectively, NASA's Hansen's projected GHG emissions for 'Scenario A' has easily been exceeded since his testimony in 1988. To state otherwise is a falsehood, categorically.
Now, back to the above chart.
For the year 2015, NASA's model predictions had temperature change for all 3 scenarios declining. Of course, we now know the exact opposite took place with the sharp increase in 2015 global temps.
It is important to note that since the 1988 testimony, the NASA climate predictions have very rarely been correct regarding annual temperature changes. (NASA is not an exception, though - all climate computer models and experts suffer the same level of failure.)
For what it's worth, the chart also shows the 2016 predictions: there is continuing decline for Scenarios B & C, but a sharp spike up for Scenario A to a record calendar year anomaly level.
While global warming alarmists are celebrating 2015 as the "warmest" year ever, the climate model failures clearly point to the absurdity of focusing on peak or trough moments as indicators of informed expertise. Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.
Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3-year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3-year averages remove the focus from peaks/troughs.
As can be seen, 3-year averages of the GISS and HC4 datasets depict the last 3-year average increase due to the El Niño conditions, and those questionable man-made factors.
Be that as it may, the GISS and HC4 averages still remain closer to the realm of NASA's Scenario C range. As a reminder, the Scenario C predictions are a result of net zero GHG emissions simulated to have started in year 2000, which is yet another galaxy away from reality.
In conclusion, some relevant takeaways on climate models:
1. At this point, now close to 3 decades after NASA's testimony, one can safely surmise that expert climate models can't predict squat. The climate is a chaotic complex that defies even the most sophisticated and powerful forecasting tools.
2. GHG emissions have far surpassed the 1988 "world-will-soon-end" BAU construct - a construct that many alarmists still believe. Yet the predicted positive feedback from BAU has not occurred and thus runaway global warming is, without question, AWOL.
3. The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming/cooling that is due to natural forces. The models were designed to purposefully rely on greenhouse gas forcings as their major causal factor, while diminishing natural climate impacts. It's no wonder that climate models remain on a fail path.
4. Based on the model outputs from 1960 to the present, policymakers and the public would be better served by rejecting the alarmist scenarios A and B; instead, moving forward, base all adaption and mitigation policies on Scenario 'C', which would likely produce better outcomes with superior allocation of scarce resources.
The climate models definitely have their important place in the climate researcher's toolbox. They are best suited to advance science's better understanding of our world, but their climate predictions, forecasts and prognostications should never be relied on - they are unreliable and inaccurate.
Update h/t: Video of climate scientist making the same point about climate model failure before a congressional committee on Feb 2, 2016:
The lower troposphere represents that layer of the atmosphere which is predicted to first experience the positive feedback of accelerated warming due to human greenhouse gases.
Recently, NOAA and NASA held a global warming presentation, which included various charts, and an unexpected admission that the atmosphere was not as warm as previous El Niño years.
An essential general review of the presentation can be found here.
The troposphere's lack of achieving the "warmest" year label was confirmed by the NOAA/NASA analysis of the relevant balloon and satellite datasets. And the adjacent chart is a combination from the NOAA/NASA presentation, with one chart being superimposed atop the other.
Other than a normal atmospheric response to the latest large El Niño temperature surge, the chart documents the continued lack of dangerous positive feedback warming.
As the state-of-the-art satellite technology shows (see chart), significant global warming since the early 2000’s has been nonexistent.
There has definitely been an extended ‘pause’ (aka the ‘Hiatus’ in science journals). The pause has generated some 60+ scientific explanations regarding its existence and persistence.
This has become a real problem for many proponents of dangerous global warming, which has recently pushed them into a stance of actually denying the 'pause'.
Empirically, since November 2000 the lower atmosphere temperature trend has actually been negative at a minus 0.12ºC per century trend. (The chart’s green curve is a 36-month average, which makes the pause even clearer to the casual observer.)
The chart also includes r-squared calculations, besides linear trends, that indicate a fairly weak 30-year relationship between CO2 and temperatures, which appears to have become a zero relationship over the last 15 years.
In review, the AGW theory is based on a CO2-induced warming of the lower atmosphere, at a rapid and accelerating warming rate - this being a result of the theory's speculative positive feedback loop.
As can be seen, the satellite empirical evidence after 30+ years does not readily support the climate-alarmist AGW theory, nor the doomsday predictions of global warming hell.
Although the satellites are considered the gold-standard for measuring and observing sea levels, hurricanes/typhoons, ozone holes, sea ice, atmospheric CO2 distribution, polar ice sheet masses and etc., the same 24/7 technology used to measure temperatures across the entire habitable world is now being ignored (i.e., denied) due to the above inconvenient evidence.
The adjacent chart pretty much makes a turkey mockery of accelerating global warming fears. It's simply not flying happening.
While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against "catastrophic" global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds' elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate-evil.
Like so many Thanksgivings of the past, those on the 'quest' have piously announced civilization's reaching its 'last chance' point of saving itself from climate doomsday. But all of these TurkeynadoSharknado-like prophecies that the end-is-near have proven to be pure anti-science fiction.
At some point, we can hope some sanity returns to the climate science anti-CO2 Quixote brotherhood of warriors. But in the meantime, what does the actual climate science say?
Well, this chart is just brutally frank: the fast growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (the black dots) have not exactly been the robust evil foe the elite establishment has fixated on.
As the chart depicts, the CO2 impact on either short (red curve) or long-term (pink curve) rapid global temperature acceleration appears to be non-existent versus the "consensus" predictions. And the blue-dash curve reveals the rather turkey-like impact on the 36-month average of absolute global temperatures.
Indeed, global temperatures have increased since 1950. But the scientific reality is that the chart confirms a steady global warming that has been taking place since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 1700s) - well before the influx of the giant CO2 emissions from the industrial/consumer era. The chart clearly shows a long history of frequent periods of rapidly increasing temperatures, then to be always followed by a significant deceleration.
Examine the chart's most recent period, from December 1996 through October 2015. The periods of both rapid temperature increases and decreases are evident, just as they existed since instrumental recording of temperatures first began.
The vast majority of climate analysis based on actual empirical evidence show similar results, whether in a global or regional context.
Terrified by global warming doomsday? Not so much anymore, it would seem.
Suffice it to say, Americans are no longer impressed by the claims of government and celebrity elites. Fully 97% now reject the unreal turkey-esque predictions of climate change disasters.
And the American public is not alone. The global masses join Americans in their low assessment of the elites' unscientific climate calamities.
As the public has learned, the empirical evidence supports neither the man-made climate change disaster narrative nor the CO2-reducing solutions proposed, which have been seriously debunked.
With all that said, foolish anti-science elites will continue to make preposterous claims and those exaggerated, attic-crazy predictions leading up to the soon to be Paris COP21 climate conference.
One last 'chance' - look at the chart, are you still terrified this Thanksgiving? How about that wacky college-aged, censorship-loving, millennial niece gnawing on that turkey wing next to you?
Note: Excel used to calculate the 3-year absolute temperature and CO2 level averages; also used to calculate the moving 36-month and 360-month per century acceleration/deceleration trends (Excel slope function) as depicted on chart; the absolute temps calculated using the HadCRUT4 month anomalies and NOAA's monthly global mean temperature estimates; and, the 3-year average beginning value for CO2 was offset to a zero starting place. Temperature sources used: here and here. CO2 sources used: here (March 1958-October 2015) and here (used annual historical levels for each month of the given year, from January 1850 to February 1958).
The climate doomsday-cult promoters at the Huffington Post and Climate Nexus did their usual thing, trying to convince the American public that Hurricane Joaquin was the result of global warming.
Of course, when the alarmists uttered these claims, they were based on the hurricane computer models that forecast Joaquin's path would strike the East Coast of the U.S. Fortunately for the coastal residents, the climate change doomsters were wrong, spectacularly.
Instead, as the adjacent chart clearly documents, those ocean waters have cooled since 1940, not warmed as predicted. Another case of 'those stubborn facts'.
In summary, the empirical evidence again confirms that climate simulations and computer models are very suspect regarding their capabilities at both short and long-term predictions/forecasts. Governing elites, bureaucrats and the public should absolutely not base any expensive policy-making decisions on these research tools.
Per NOAA, the U.S. warming pause (aka the 'Hiatus') has now achieved a 19-year stall (see adjacent chart). In fact, a slight cooling has been the trend over this period.
Remember the predicted global warming by experts? The same "experts" who predicted that hurricanes would become stronger and more frequent as a result of the global warming - which also did not happen.
As the empirical climate datasets reveal, the predicted global warming has amounted to about nil for close to two decades. And because of this, the global warming scientists recently resorted to exceptional fabrications of temperature datasets to produce "warming" that disappears the 'Pause'.
Ginning up climate change fears in anticipation of the Paris 2015 COP21 climate travesty show seems to be the driving force behind the most recent wholesale fake-warming production.
Back to the included chart. As depicted, the 19-year pause includes not only the continental U.S. (at -0.4°F per century cooling) but also the states of Virginia and Maryland, both at -0.5°F per century cooling.
Why depict those two state's temperature trends?
Because those states surround the metropolitan District of Columbia where federal bureaucrats, U.S. elected representatives and administration officials pontificate about the rapid and dangerous "global warming". These elites live and work in the D.C. micro-climate warming bubble that is a direct result of federal taxpayer asphalt, steel, concrete and airports with very hot jet exhausts, which in combination have produced a rapidly warming urban heat island (UHI).
The NOAA scientific empirical evidence is rather clear and undeniable. For most Americans, global warming is not an issue and is definitely not impacting their daily lives.
But for a minority of governing elites, who obviously created a hostile warming micro-climate for their work environment, it has made them incapable of distinguishing the climate forest from the micro-climate trees, so-to-speak. Or, put another way, they can't discern the difference between climate reality and climate fantasy.
Hmmm....maybe the best solution for saving the elites from their own, self-created hostile and climate change triggering environment is to disperse the federal government offices and personnel across rural locations throughout the U.S.
Note: The per century temperature trends for the continental U.S, Maryland, Virginia and D.C. were produced using NOAA's 12-month temperature periods ending in the month of August, through August 2015. Source of NOAA data used. NOAA images (a Zip file) of chart's calculated per century trends used.
The much embarrassing 'Pause' continues to ignore the predictions of the wrong-way IPCC and government-funded climate "scientists" - you know, the "experts" who have been long predicting end-of-the-world global warming since the late 80's.
The adjacent chart reflects poorly on the "consensus" science that unequivocally states the human CO2 emissions must first increase the lower troposphere temperatures in order to warm the Earth. This violation of the sacrosanct climate-agenda physics has become a real hiatus head-scratcher for scientists and journalists making a living off the govt-approved orthodoxy.
Despite 'those stubborn facts', the elites - i.e. bureaucrats and politicians - of the U.N. and national governments continue plans to party-in-Paris come late November, without any regard to actual climate reality. The political 'Agenda' and climate COP21 show must go on regardless of inconvenient evidence-based science.
Obama's own NOAA climate division reports that the empirical evidence documents clear and sustained cooling trends for both Alaska and the continental U.S. for the past 16 years.
Yet, when not too busy taking selfies near Alaskan glaciers, Obama spent time to prophesize about dangerous "global warming," thus exhibiting either a deep ignorance of real climate science and facts or an amazing dishonesty that journalists allowed him to get away with.
It's a sad state of affairs when a president is this badly out of touch with the evidence-based science that his own administration's science agencies are reporting.
NOAA's Alaska/US evidence also supports the global warming 'pause' that has proven to be a major embarrassment for those proponents of climate-doomsday angst.
Global warming hysteria and fear-mongering, as expressed by the fringe green groups, progressive Democrats and the extremists of the Obama administration, are reaching a peak as November's Paris COP21 climate summit is approaching. But is the hysteria warranted?
Over and over again the public hears from UN and national government bureaucrats that global warming is rapidly becoming dangerous and accelerating faster than that experienced in the past due to human CO2 emissions. U.S. politicians of extreme left-wing persuasion seem to be especially enamored with over-the-top climate catastrophic predictions, which makes sense since they propose more taxes and regulations to control Americans and businesses and, of course, to "save-the-world," so they say.
Seriously, is the hysteria and draconian proposals to eliminate fossil fuels even close to being warranted? Should President Obama really be proposing that the U.S. follow unproven and potentially reckless energy and economic policies based on climate-cult doomsday prophecies?
Well, the adjacent chart provides 12 reasons why Obama's obsession and the hysteria of progressives are plainly absurd.
Look close - indeed there are at least 12 previous presidential terms that experienced global warming rates (a.k.a., acceleration) greater than anything experienced over the last 6.5 years of Obama's administration.
In fact, the majority of the greatest 5-year acceleration (i.e., the highest warming rates) took place prior to 1950 when CO2 emissions were a fraction of today's levels.
The politicos' global warming hysteria appears even more contrived and manipulative when examining acceleration using a moving 6.5 year average for the 5-year acceleration rates. On the chart, the black curve is the 6.5 year moving average since 1860.
(Why 6.5 years? Through June 2015, Obama's term in office covers 6.5 years - 78 months.)
Simply put, the black curve represents 1,868 datapoints for global warming acceleration, thus comparing Obama's length of term with those occupying the White House prior. Exactly 1,170 of the datapoints exceed the June 2015 datapoint of "rapid" warming that has so panicked this administration.
Needless to say, global warming from human CO2 emissions is an exceptional yawner, and is in no sense a current legitimate threat when viewed in the context of recent climate history.
That's a climate FactCheck and undeniable. And here's more proof that the current warming rate is unexceptional.
As this chart depicts, atmospheric CO2 growth has been on a fast-track growth curve. CO2 levels have been accelerating up since 1960 - true relentless growth.
The dogmatic and conventional global warming hypothesis claims that this type of CO2 level growth will cause a dangerous increase of both atmospheric and surface temperatures, thus increasing atmospheric water vapor - i.e., humidity - leading to a positive feedback loop of non-stoppable accelerating global warming.
Clearly, as this chart of empirical evidence reveals, that has not happened. Atmospheric humidity has actually declined, while the atmosphere and ocean temperatures accelerate, decelerate and often develop cooling phases.
Unlike the monotonous, steady state, fast CO2 growth, the major climate measurements are highly variable, obviously unlinked to the CO2 input from humans.
However, per the evidence and the newest research, a case can be made that the non-acceleration and variability of global temperatures for the last 15+ years may have more to do with the 11-year cycles of sunspot activity not being as strong during recent solar peaks than the relentless CO2 growth.
Note: The dark purple, blue and red curves represent centered 37-month averages. The non-centered 37-month averages for CO2 (cyan dots) and RSS atmosphere temperature (green curve) were superimposed on the original chart found here.
The Pope's climate doomsday encyclical has generated a lot of controversy; and has probably doomed him to be eventually nominated for the Catholic 'hall of shame' for fear mongering anti-science.
Of course, it's not completely the Pope's fault for his ignorance. The Pope's gatekeepers and advisers can take much of the credit for making sure he did not hear about the actual climate science empirical evidence.
One climate doomsday scenario (among many) that continues to have no basis in climate science reality is the infamous prediction that Gaia will soon have a Venus-like atmosphere and boiling oceans...because of humans fossil fuel use. You can rest assured that Pope Francis was made aware of the potentiality of this fringe calamity.
It's a calamity that has long been pushed by the world's leading climate science alarmists.
NASA's former top climate expert, James Hansen, has been in the past a principal proponent of this particular doomsday prophecy. And of course, he provided the dramatic testimony to Congress in the summer of 1988 that really initiated the fear mongering in the U.S. regarding catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters - like turning Earth into Venus.
Unfortunately for the Pope, James Hansen and other hysterical climate doomsday soothsayers, the real world empirical evidence clearly shows that the world's climate is self-correcting and not prone to those scary predicted tipping points and runaway disasters from growing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Case in point: The Tropics (20S to 20N latitudes) - A Venus Doomsday?
The above chart plot reveals a tropical climate, as measured by satellites, experiencing a very slight cooling trend (blue curve) over the last 20 years. In contrast, the IPCC's latest climate model (CMIP5/RCP4.5) curve (green line) predicted a significant warming trend during that same 20-year period.
Going back even further, the red chart plot depicts an 83-month period of exceptional warming right after the Hansen testimony of 1988. In contrast, the IPCC climate models predicted a significant cooling trend for the Tropics for those 83 months - an abysmal failure, represented by a 7 degree trend difference between reality and prediction.
Needless to say, although we will, both the consensus climate experts and climate models have been spectacularly wrong in their doomsday projections for the Tropics, which means that human CO2 causing Venus-like conditions for Gaia has no basis in climate science reality.
It's unfortunate that this pope fell victim to his own gullibility and the anti-science machinations of his court jesters advisers. But there is good news for the Catholic masses: you can now also comfortably ignore this encyclical since it was produced from the irrational passion of fear versus the known rational, empirical climate science.
NOAA's latest U.S. temperature dataset reveals that over last 20 years (including 1996), May temperatures have been on a cooling trend: a -0.8°F/century trend.
In addition, the same dataset for 12-month periods ending May shows a cooling trend over 19 years. That trend is a -0.4°F/century.
Regardless if one refers to these climate temperature dynamics as a 'pause,' a 'stall,' a 'hiatus,' or a 'plateau,' it was not expected - no alarmist hypothesis or theory-based scenario predicted this outcome.
Note: Temperature trends are for the continental U.S. The official climate agency source of trends and chart.
Political expedience, and a craving to please, truly corrupts scientists and the science they produce...in an era when science fraud is on an exponential rise, one would think that climate agencies would be more careful with their scientific integrity...especially in a year of a major climate conference...did NOAA just provide a new Climategate-effort of science deception?...similar to what sunk Copenhagen2009?.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The past several days has seen much written about the new revision of the NOAA global temperature dataset - a revision that supposedly eliminates the global warming 'pause' or if you prefer, the 'hiatus'.
The revision has received withering scrutiny, with multiple significant criticisms being leveled. Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands "scientists" find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.
By utilizing questionable adjustments based on even more questionable assumptions, NOAA managed to produce an entirely fabricated increase in the global warming trend from 1998 to 2012. Theirs is not a real global warming event, it is essentially nothing more than statistical flimflam.
Per the critics, several key failings include:
The complete ignoring of the world's best climate measurement technologies - satellites and the Argo ocean-float array system - likely ignored because both technologies show little if any warming in their respective realms.
The authors provided a statistical significance level of a remarkably lame .10 - so lame it pretty much alone indicates this study's claims have the lasting robustness of toilet paper after flushing.
This study significantly lowered sea surface temperatures, specifically from 1998-2000. This lowering had the immediate impact of making the temperature rise from 2000-2012 appear much larger than it really was.
Study used Arctic land temperatures to manufacture rising Arctic sea temperatures - conveniently ignoring that regional sea temperatures are almost always zero (0°C) since sea ice stretches across the area for a majority of a given year.
In a rather bizarre manner that non-biased scientists would not employ, this study massively adjusted up the ocean buoy temperature measurements in order to match the ship records of engine water intake temperature; yet the buoys were designed to measure surrounding sea temperatures, and the engine intakes were not. Scientists familiar with this issue agree that the ship engine enhanced temperature measurements should have been adjusted down instead.
Despite all the ludicrous adjustment machinations this newest NOAA revision relies on, the per century global warming trend fabricated (for the 1998 to 2012 period) remains well below even the IPCC's average climate model projections.
Relevant to that last point, is the above chart. It's a comparison of warming trends during the 15-year periods ending 2012 (see blue rectangles) and 1997 (see red circles).
Using climate agency temperature anomalies that were reported as of the end of 2012, one can clearly see the dramatic drop in global warming rates from the earlier 1983-1997 period versus the period ending 2012.
Did it still warm from 1998 to 2012?
Yes, it did. But it was at a fraction of the warming trend of the previous 15 years - a definitive slowdown versus the prior warming trend.
And as the chart reveals, the CMIP models (the RCP 4.5 scenarios) expected significantly more warming than observed during 1998-2012 period. Objectively, the models predicted an accelerating warming rate, which actually failed to happen, as the empirical evidence proves.
Because of this decline ('pause'?) in global warming trends, NOAA felt compelled to simply fabricate more warming in a rather feeble attempt to make global warming seem more of a existential threat that might even scare an anti-capitalism Pope into embarrassing fear-mongering.
Unfortunately for the "scientists" at NOAA, despite all their really lame statistical shenanigans, the revised NOAA temperature trend for the 15-year period ending 2012 is still a quite tepid 0.9°C per century - indeed, the descriptor 'lukewarm' readily comes to mind.
Article: From the science-is-never-settled department, a new study utilizing satellite technology measures Antarctica's albedo. It is found to be increasing overall, thus increasing the solar radiation reflected back into space. Ergo, there be climate cooling forces at work despite record atmospheric levels of CO2.
Although the Vatican (and yet another Pope) has embraced the fearmongering of anti-science and anti-empiricism, the unicorn of climate change...dangerous and accelerating global warming...still does not exist, according to the UK's HadCRUT4 dataset published by the MetOffice.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Using the updated HC4 global anomalies dataset, since 1955 the global temperature trend for intermediate and long-term periods has never exceeded 1.8 degrees per century, let alone the fabled 2.0° mark, as of calculations based on the March 31, 2015 date.
As the adjacent graph reveals, the latest 10 year trend since 2005 has dropped to a barely measurable 0.4°/century and the last 18 years (since 1997) is an eyelash higher at 0.67°/century - and by the way, both of these figures are essentially climate-impact insignificant.
Why 1997? Well...there has been very little warming since 1997. What warming there has been is robustly below what "expert" climate models projected. Climate scientists typically refer to this unexpected deceleration as the 'hiatus' or 'pause'.
Per the chart of empirical evidence, the deceleration of global warming is evident from the fitted trend curve.
Sticking with that last 18-year trend as of March 2015, how does the most recent period stack up versus other 18-year periods when the entire HC4 dataset from 1850 is analyzed?
Since 1850, there has been 1,983 months of reported temperatures. From those, 1,768 18-year trend datapoints can be calculated.
The March 2015 18-year trend datapoint ranks number #875 - so, approximately half of the past datapoints possess a higher 18-year trend.
Yet atmospheric CO2 growth since 1964, as represented by the green circles on the graph, has been non-stoppable, blowing well past the hypothetical "safe" 350ppm level to reach the highest modern CO2 level ever.
This combination of temperature acceleration datapoints and CO2 measurements clearly demonstrates that CAGW accelerated warming does not exist; and it is unequivocally, irrefutably, undeniably and non-debatable that the world is experiencing a rather tepid, 'luke-warming' environment.
Historically, today's temperature trends are entirely within in the realm of what has taken place in the past from natural temperature variation, regardless of CO2 levels.
In other words, it is indisputable that the current climate does not suffer from "dangerous" man-made warming.
One could say that this infallible empiricism defines the non-religious, scientific climate change reality, so-to-speak.
Notes: Interpreting the above chart's blue columns: for example, since 1984 (see yellow box) the last 31 years (see corresponding blue column X-axis label) the warming trend was 1.73C/century, as of the 31-year period ending March 2015. The green circles are simple calendar year atmospheric CO2 measurements - the first (leftmost) circle represents 1964 and the last green circle is 2014. All blue columns representing temperature trends use at least 100 months of temperature measurements for the trend calculations (using less than 100 can produce extreme volatility for calculated trends - the less than 100 datapoint calculations are very interesting but can be quite misleading). Excel was used to calculate the different period trends (using Excel's slope function); Excel's charting function was used to plot the trend datapoints. Those stubborn facts: source of UK MetOffice H4 dataset; source of atmospheric annual CO2 levels.
A recent lame paper by researchers desperately trying to tie Syrian violence with global warming and climate change was completely eviscerated by a wide range of experts...in summation, it was an exceedingly stupid paper...plus, history of climate antiquity provides plenty of evidence that cooler temperatures provoke more war, rebellions and organized violence than warmer periods.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This chart depicts historical precipitation and temperature reconstruction from northern China.
Overlaid on the chart by 'C3' are significant Chinese events from the past, along with identification of major solar states (minimums and maximums).
The scientists who compiled the precipitation/temperature records and produced the reconstructions had summarized that solar influence was climatically significant for China due to the affect on annual monsoons.
Using Wikipedia, major war/violence/political events were identified and then added to the chart (color bars).
To the more than casual viewer, it would certainly appear that a cooler climate regime has a higher association with extreme organized violence than a warmer period.
The chart's green curve indicates that those periods with less precipitation (i.e. droughts) are more common when cooler temps prevail - more arid conditions, with less food production make people (and societies) rather restless.
The unequivocal and indisputable climate research clearly demonstrates that climate change is constant; and when combined with historical accounts and anecdotal evidence, warmer climates tend to favor prosperity and peace outcomes while cooler periods provide more of the opposite.
Note: 'C3' originally wrote about this research in 2011. There was a recent article at Ice Age Now (and a YouTube video) using another 'C3' chart with significant Chinese events being overlaid on the Greenland ice core temp reconstructions (that prompted our doing the same for the above northern China chart). Wikipedia info page sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Winter can be sooo cruel...especially for scientists who have long immersed themselves in the pile of manure that CO2 CAGW hysteria represents...good news, though!...NASA and James Hansen have a fallback position...namely, the previous climate hysteria predictions they and the press were pushing on Congress and the public.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This updated NOAA U.S. temperature map is a stark reminder of the incredibly cold climate that northern and eastern areas of the US have recently experienced. The bitter cold, in particular, impacted those regions east of the Mississippi River, with states butting up against Canada taking the brunt.
It's also a reminder of those predictions by NASA experts and computer models, as promulgated during 1988 congressional testimony, that accelerated global warming would significantly impact the U.S., with many "experts" then claiming our future was one of warmer winters and no snow.
More to that point is the adjacent chart of US Nov/Dec/Jan temperatures (28 years) and trends since that 1988 testimony. It represents the following 8 states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (all these states are east of the Mississippi and share a border with Canada).
To summarize the chart essentials:
1. Winter temperatures (Nov/Dec/Jan) exhibit a strong variability (the blue columns). Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels during this period has not caused ever-warmer winters.
2. Many of the winters are below the 1988 average of 27.58°F, including the winters of 2014 and 2015. (see blue dashed line)
3. Despite the very warm winter of 2002, the overall warming trend (orange curves) of winter temperatures has collapsed to a cooling trend of -5.7°F. There is no escaping the obvious NOAA empirical evidence that greenhouse gases are not producing the predicted accelerated warming.
4. The 10-year average winter temperature (the green curve) peaked in 2007 from a low experienced in 1989. Without any doubt, those few very exceptional warm winters (5 of the 28 winter datapoints) have definitely moved the average up. With that said, since 2007 it has declined slightly.
Is the U.S. just a rare anomaly where a cooling winter trend, not warming, is happening? Unfortunately, for the public and CAGW-scientists, regions with cooling trends are becoming more common.
Additional current empirical evidence that CO2 does not cause dangerous "warming" winters:
Note: Source of dataset for 8-state winter temperature chart produced by Excel. Using Excel calculated the 8-state winter months average; the 10-year trends and averages that begin with year 1988 on the chart used U.S. winter (Nov/Jan/Dec) temperature data starting with November 1979.The 1988 blue-diamond column on chart represents year of James Hansen global warming testimony.
The East Coast elites, aging yuppies and metrosexual deadenders who bitterly cling to the CO2-caused "global warming" religion are having a tough time...over the last 20 years, winters in the Northeast region of the U.S. have become more harsh and severe...that's opposite of their climate-doomsday cult leaders' predictions...instead of getting climate news from the likes of Al Gore and Brian Williams, Northeast denizens of elite enclaves might want to finally introduce themselves to what is called empirical evidence.....
(click on charts to enlarge)
As the U.S. East Coast continues to dig out from another major blizzard, it is a reminder that natural climate forces and patterns have eviscerated the predictions made by by government climate "experts." Their predictions of warmer winters and less snow have not only been incorrect, they have been flat-out spectacularly wrong.
While ignorance is bliss for many, it is still is no excuse for the elites of politics and media to continue to spread falsehoods about CO2 causing warming winters.
As the above NOAA graphs clearly document, the strong cooling trend for the winter months of December (19 years), January (21 years) and February (20 years) across the U.S. northeast is indisputable.
Let's be clear about this: there is no identifiable group of climate-doomsday experts within government-funded circles who predicted twenty years ago that CO2 would cause this cooling trend outcome.
And precipitation trends over the same time periods in the Northeast? Well, depending on the month, take your pick, up or down. For any given winter month, one year of cold temperatures could produce a wet or a dry month.
It would appear that winter weather is not that predictable from year to year; and obviously, nor are climate conditions some 10, 20 30 or 50 years into the future.
Those who have relied on the CO2-induced AGW climate hypothesis have continuously been proven wrong. Yet, the CO2 cult faithful still hold climate doomsday predictions as gospel, regardless of the empirical science.
The updated NASA/Hansen climate model chart with the latest GISS and HadCRUT4 observations remains a testament to abject climate model failure by the anointed "experts"...chart includes updated GHG growth trends from IPCC AR5...not surprisingly, climate reality is very unkind to the CO2-centric computer simulation predictions...one could fairly surmise from the actual performance of models and experts that they can't predict squat...just say'n.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
No matter how many years go by, the trend towards ever worse climate model predictions continues.
Case in point: The NASA/Hansen climate model that was used by climate experts to convince the politicians, the media and pubic that the world was at severe risk for massive global warming if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not drastically cut.
This model's predictions came to the forefront when NASA's James Hansen provided testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1988. As it was discovered much later, the Hansen testimony was stage-crafted for maximum fear-mongering impact, which should have been the first clue that there was a credibility issue regarding the climate model.
Before diving into the details, a short glance at the accompanying chart provides the critical policymaker insight:
Essentially, the NASA model predicted temperatures would follow the bright green curve if GHGs were not curtailed. The cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed. Greenhouse gases have continued their accelerated growth, yet the observed temperatures (the green and pink circles) closely match the cyan curve. Simply, the model's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, worsening by the year.
The following provides more details:
The newly published 2014 IPCC AR5 summary report bemoaned the recent significant growth increase of GHGs. The IPCC established the per year growth, prior to 2000, to be at a 1.3% rate. The IPCC AR5 reports that GHG growth has now jumped to 2.2% per year through 2010 (see more details here).
[Editor: Speaking to CO2 emissions more specifically, using the 1999 year-end global CO2 emission level as the base year, CO2 emissions have grown at an average 3.0% per year pace as of the end of 2013. That's 14 years of exceptional growth. In contrast, the 14 years of CO2 growth prior to 1988 is only 1.8% per year (read below as to why prior to 1988).]
To say that GHGs have exceeded the 'business-as-usual" (BAU) scenario would be an understatement - according to the IPCC AR5, a 70% increase has taken place, on a per year basis.
Of course, the BAU scenario was made famous by during that 1988 U.S. Senate hearing.
Per Hansen: "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
In a peer-reviewed article supporting his testimony, he stated that the 1970s and 1980s had an approximate annual growth average of 1.5% (prior to 1988). This was the paper's BAU 'Scenario A' that he spoke of in his testimony. In his written Senate statement, he included an appendix that verifies the ~1.5% BAU estimate for GHGs, plus a chart that depicted the scenarios A, B and C.
That chart is replicated above, with Scenario 'A' being the green curve; the 'B' scenario is the orange curve; and the cyan curve is the 'C' scenario, which represents the 'draconian' emission cuts Hansen states are required to minimize potential global warming.
As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.
Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.
As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.
Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.
Notes: This updated NASA/Hansen chart now uses the current HC4 and GISS V3 datasets, as of 12/31/14. Instead of plotting individual year datapoints for observed temperatures, plotted 3-year (36-month averages ending in December): this reflects an expectation that models can't predict accurately every annual period, but over longer 3-year periods the model and observation trends should better match. Starting in 1960, both GISS and HC4 3-year averages were offset to start at zero (0.0°C) anomaly. To reduce the clutter on chart, only 'even' year observed 3-year temperature datapoints were plotted. The small insert chart is data from IPCC AR5 summary report. The green, orange and cyan Hansen model plots came from this climate-doomsday site.
The growth rate of CO2 has never been greater...and climate-doomsday cult shrieking has never been shriek-ier...yet...to much embarrassment...2014 wasn't the 'warmest-evah'!...maybe next year, though...in the meantime, the history of global temperatures and CO2 growth since 1850 in a single chart.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The HadCRUT4 (HC4) global temperature dataset is now considered the gold-standard for surface temperatures (the previous gold-standard was the HC3 dataset).
Using the annual HC4 calculated temperatures, the adjoining chart was created.
As observed, the global temperatures have essentially stalled since 1998, with 2014 likely not greater than that reached in 1998.
This chart also delineates the two major warming periods since 1850. The first from 1917 to 1944; the last from 1976 to 1998. The warming trend increase of the latter over the former was a paltry +0.4 per century - an increase well within what one would expect from natural variability, regardless of CO2 levels.
And then there's the CO2 growth itself.
The 20-year growth rates show an almost continuous climb since the early 1950's. At the end of 2014, it was the highest ever. This greater than 'business-as-usual' growth was discussed in the latest IPCC AR5 report - the growth rate for total greenhouse gases has followed a similar path.
Finally, the chart depicts where the much discussed 2º, 4º and 6º increases over the 1850 global temperature would be... see the red dashed lines.
How long to reach the 2º mark that elites fear so much? Well, per the last 18 years, that trend would indicate another 150+ years before the 2 degree increase would ever be reached.
From this empirical evidence, it would be fair to surmise that invoking more big government polices and regulations to combat unsubstantiated climate-doomsday speculation might not be in the best interests of the public.
The "dangerous" climate change and "catastrophic" global warming crowd experienced brutal shell shock this past week...the "warmest-evah" and "hottest-ever" memes went down in hot flames, so to speak...UK's MetOffice published the bad news.....
So, in a nutshell, was 2014 the warmest (the hottest) year?
As the adjacent chart shows, the reported 2014 HadCRUT4 (HC4) global temperature with its estimated error bars (±0.1°C) may have been the warmest, and then again.....there are 15 prior years that may have been warmer when considering all the error bar implications.
To add another consideration to the analysis, why should one blindly accept that the margin of error is only ±0.1°C?
Maybe it's time for both the policymakers and public to recognize that the margin of error should be at least ±0.2°C for global temperatures, as reported by the major climate agencies.
As a numerous experts are discovering, and clearly documenting, the major climate research agencies have been practicing a wholesale change (i.e. adjusting, manipulating, fabricating, etc.) of the reported empirical measurements. The result? The recent global surface temperature datasets are now much warmer than originally reported.
And it is not difficult for the non-government climate science experts to identify locations across the globe where temperatures have been "adjusted" up well past the supposed margin error upside of +0.1°C.
This means that the commonly used margin of error as currently applied does not take into consideration the plethora of recent questionable manipulations to make the world "warmer." Put another way: the margin of error does not account for the identified 'scientist-caused' global warming.
Case in point.
During early 2014, the MetOffice replaced the world's gold-standard HadCRUT3 (HC3) global temp dataset with their new HC4. When one applies the more probable ±0.2°C error range to the cooler HC3 dataset, the result is that there are actual years during the decade of the 1970's that would have matched the 2014 HC3 reported temp; and multiple years of the 80's that would have exceeded.
Conclusion: From a variety of measurement tools, it is known that the world has warmed overall since the 1970s. It is now indisputable that the MetOffice/NASA/NOAA surface temperature datasets have "mysteriously" and significantly diverged from the satellite temperature measurements that they so well matched in the past. It is also well established that the surface datasets are constantly being adjusted upward on a frequent basis. Because of these questionable adjustments, the commonly used margin of error is most likely too narrow. In order to compensate for these human endeavors to enhance the "global warming" storyline, the margin of error range applied by policymakers should at least be doubled, if not more.
We've said it before...climate models can't predict squat...current scenarios of global climate temperatures and level of temp change already reveal a massive failure...policymakers and taxpayers should completely disregard the virtual computer simulations of climate doomsday proposed by UN's IPCC.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
This is not brain surgery. This is not rocket science. This is not nuclear physics.
Climate science fiction: For the last 10 year-period, the UN's IPCC climate models predicted greenhouse global warming equaling a per century trend of 1.7°C.
Climate fact: The globe warmed at only a +0.2°C/century trend. In other words, global warming has stalled, paused, or if one prefers, in a hiatus condition.
Simply put, the computer simulations programmed by CAGW alarmists produced virtual global warming 8 times greater than climate reality.
This spectacular failure by models (developed by the "consensus" experts) is well documented. And as of this date, there are over 50+excuses reasons by these "experts" as to why their billion-dollar climate simulations have turned out to be worthless for policymakers.
Article source for above climate model predictions.
Claims of rapid, accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal global warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases means that should be happening...especially for the oceans that represent about 72% of the Earth's surface...yet the latest empirical evidence shows the above adjectives are big fat lies when it comes to this gigantic thermal sink...Ooops...those stubborn facts strike again.....
(click on pie chart to enlarge)
Ocean expert Bob Tisdale's recent article delineated the various warming trends of the key ocean basins.
His dataset for the adjacent chart comes from the ARGO system, which is the most sophisticated technology in use for measuring ocean depth warming. (More on that dataset here.)
Previously, 'C3' published an article about the non-"unequivocal" nature of global warming. That article also provided insight as to locations of the much feared "dangerous" and "rapid" global warming - turns out the only locations are the concrete/asphalt environs of airports and major urban/metro areas.
So, what does the actual ocean-deep warming empirical evidence presented on this chart tell us? (Remember, this is the warmed-up data presented after bureaucrat sceintists adjusted the raw measurment data.)
#1. On a per century trend basis, global warming of the oceans is barely happening.
#2. Unequivocal ocean warming is not taking place - note that neither the Pacific or North Atlantic exhibit a warming that is climate significant (in fact, one could claim their warming is likely a function of measurement error and/or those "adjustments").
#3. The oceans are not going to be boiling from CO2 emissions as predicted by NASA's top climate expert.
#4. If 72% of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.
Hmmm...those stubborn climate facts can be sooo annoying.
Like most inconvenient stubborn climate facts, the mainstream media propaganda that modern global warming is "unprecedented" doesn't stand up to even simple scrutiny of the facts...with little effort, one can identify, via NOAA, earlier periods where global warming was greater and increasing faster...is this a case of journalists being deniers of empirical evidence?.....
As this chart of empirical evidence demonstrates, global warming has taken place in the past, well before the explosion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
And there have been times when earlier warming either equaled or exceeded modern warming. For the 25-year period shown, early 20th century warming was actually greater than the 25-yr warming through 2014.
For almost all consumers of the mainstream press, they are totally unaware that recent warming has no 'chops', so to speak.
It is not "unprecedented" and it certainly is less rapid than the earlier period. Also, the modern warming rate exhibits a 1.16°C per century trend. The earlier period? A 1.75°C/century trend.
Boiling it down to the numbers...that's 1.5x faster warming for 1920-1944, yet modern CO2 emissions had a growth 5.6x greater. That's the opposite of expert predictions.
Accurate and fair to say, modern warming is not exceptional.
Regardless of this unequivocal and indisputable scientific empirical evidence, which challenges the "consensus" global warming orthodoxy, the mainstream media chooses to gleefully push the latest discredited propaganda regarding the "hottest year ever" - an event that has been happening since the end of Little Ice Age, with an astoundingly great frequency.
Facts rule. The 'PR' exaggerations and embellishments are just anti-science dressed in those old fearmongering clothes. One's got to sell newspapers or web page hits, no?
Note: Source for annual NOAA temperatures used in Excel to calculate and plot 25-year temperature changes and linear trends. For the earlier period (1920-1944), 1919 was used as the base year; for the modern era, 1989 was the base year.
The world's climate "experts" long ago predicted extreme, rapid and dangerous warming for land masses occupying the higher latitudes...extreme warming for those subarctic and polar regions... Canada's climate must not have gotten the NASA memo.....
(click on table to enlarge)
NASA's climate experts are on record for predicting all sorts of climate catastrophes, including extreme warming of the world's 'higher' latitudes (the world's polar/subpolar regions).
Certainly for Antarctica, that prediction was simply a spectacular failure.
Now comes information that NASA's "hottest-ever" year/decade has not produced a single hot temperature record in Canada since 1961. With Canadian lands mostly occupying the higher latitudes ('subarctic' starts at 50N), this is remarkable empirical evidence that the predicted extreme climate change is not so extreme.
The adjacent table of Canadian hottest temperatures recorded documents that this massive area near the top of the world has not experienced the natural hotter climate that it once had during the 1930s and 40s.
The table also includes the last 15 years of Canadian warmest temperatures - not a single year coming close to previous records with the exception of year 2007.
The global warming "warmest" year ever was finally delivered...although with some birthing difficulties...NASA had to "adjust" its previous 2014 monthly temperatures to eek out another +0.04 deg before adding December's anomaly...even with that tomfoolery, the outlook for "rapid and dangerous" warming is not so hot.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
So, to put the "warmest-year-ever" into some context, 2014 was a measly +0.07C degree warmer than 1998. And that pretty much confirms that a global warming pause/hiatus/stall has been in effect since 1998, as discussed here and here.
Other interesting context:
1. Leaving super El Niño year 1998 out of the calculation, the 15-year increase over 1982 (1982-1997) was +0.35°C - a per year increase of +0.024.
2. Again, leaving 1998 out, the recent 15-year increase over 1999 (1999-2014) was just +0.12°C, for a per year increase of only +0.008.
3.The chart plots what those respective per year increases would turn into if they continued for the 85 years until the beginning of year 2100.
4. As seen, the earlier period had a warming per year almost 3 times greater than the last 15 years - did we say 'pause'?
5. Of course, the warming linear trend over that most recent 1999-2014 span (including NASA's newest hottest year/decade ever) is an even bigger LOL - a trend that equates to +0.26°C increase by 2100.
6. And, this 'not-so-hot' warming over the last 15 years took place when greenhouse gases reached record levels, and as the IPCC documented, are growing at an ever faster pace.
Conclusion: Catastrophic global warming, as NASA envisions, remains an elusive mythical possibility, despite their best efforts at paper-temperature enhancements. The "warmest-ever" claim is mere propaganda without any scientific or climate significance.
And NASA's "warming" over 1998 record? Less than warm spit and within the error bars.
The advanced sophistication of satellites allows for the precise recording of empirical measurements...these capabilities captured the stunning natural change in global temperatures during the 1998 Super El Niño...a dramatic climate change shift that remains unrivaled since....
The super El Niño of 1998 made obvious to researchers of how natural climate phenomenons can generate huge changes that are felt for years.
Using an average of each year's monthly temperature anomalies (satellite measured), the adjacent chart's columns depict the huge shift in global temperatures from the prior 1998 level to the post-1998 level.
According to the state-of-the-art technology used by climate scientists, global warming has been unequaled since this 1998 natural event.
The only year that came close to the 1998 global temperature was 2010.
Although no single year has yet bested the 1998 temp record, the 16-year average after 1998 (including 2014) is significantly higher than the 16-year period prior. Natural climate change dramatically shifted global temperatures up, and they have not returned to the previous average level.
Instead, the annual global temperatures since 1998 have shown considerable variation, but do not reflect a pattern of temperature climate change shift - a shift only delivered by a natual phenomenon (like a super El Niño). In fact, the much researched 'Hiatus', which has existed for the last 15+ years, corroborates the lack of any impactful climate change since 1998.
As all scientists concur, the El Nino/La Nina climate oscillations take place without any human intervention or influence. Their frequency and intensity are a result of the chaotic climate system that makes it impossible for "experts" and computer models to accurately predict. Yet, when a 'big one' does occur the implications worldwide are enormous.
The overall billions spent on satellite technology has resulted in scientists being able to not only monitor these climate-significant ENSO events, the sophisticated technology has also proven to be the best means to measure the world's climate temperatures, 24/7, across the entire globe (99.6%) on a daily basis.
One way to assess the superb and spectacular satellite coverage is to envision over 127 million thermometers placed on the globe constantly taking temperature readings. In contrast, the traditional/conventional means of measuring temperatures by NOAA/NASA/UKMetOffice rely on less than 5,000 thermometers, each one supposedly recording temperature changes for a land area equal to the size of Spain.
So how does that old, traditional method work in order to determine a global temperature then? Essentially, they measure temperatures in a given specific location then use that sparse information combined with formulas to guesstimate temperatures in nearby regions.
Well, that's not too precise and is fraught with errors/biases that have to be constantly adjusted for. That's why it takes several weeks of number crunching and "adjusting" after the satellites have already reported their gold-standard global measurements.
For a good write-up on the difference between the state-of-the-art measurement technology and the old, conventional means, go here.
In the meantime, major climate change seems to be in a stalled status until the next major natural phenomenon takes place.
CAGW proponents have a long-held belief that CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the Antarctica continent along with the surrounding oceans...further, this out-of-control warming is quickly melting sea ice and the South Pole's massive ice sheets...turns out, it's a case of unrepentant denial of climate reality.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Way back in 1988, a NASA climate expert gave testimony that the 'high latitudes' (i.e. polar) would experience greater warming due to growth of human greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2 emissions.
This prediction was seized upon by global warming advocates as "proof" that the South Pole's unprecedented warming would melt sea ice and cause melting ice sheets to collapse, raising ocean levels and thus submerging worldwide coastal areas.
Indeed, there is strong evidence that GHGs have risen considerably - even to a greater extent then the feared 'business-as-usual' scenario NASA/GISS experts promulgated.
Yet the newest empirical research completely counters the fears and beliefs of the CAGW crowd: over the satellite era, some 30+ years, Antarctica's ice sheets have slightly grown and the South Pole's sea ice extent is at record levels.
Then there is the proverbial elephant in the CAGW room: the Antarctica region is not warming, per the advanced satellite technology of NASA. Those stubborn facts are indisputable and unequivocal.
Yet, denial of this empirical scientific evidence remains widespread, preventing a rational debate about the real implications of the ongoing natural climate change.
[Update: A reader inquired as to the correlation between the temperature anonmalies and monthly CO2 (ppm) levels - it was 0.015. This figure suggests that seeking a link between CO2 and South Pole temps may be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.]
Do you recall when climate "experts" told us it's was all about physics...that increasing CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels would absolutely produce perilous, breakneck accelerating climate temps...they said it was all "consensus" science and, btw, it's the physics, stupid...ooops, those pesky and stubborn facts strike again.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Clearly, over the last 30 years when CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases were skyrocketing, temperature trends here in the U.S. were significantly decelerating.
The deceleration of temperature warming is also seen in the major satellite measurements and the global land and sea observations, although not as pronounced as what took place in the continental U.S.
When the correlation is calculated for the chart's temperature trends and the average CO2 levels for each time period, the result is a -0.93 with a r2 of +0.86. That puts it in the universe of almost a perfect inverse (negative) correlation - higher CO2 levels seemingly drives temperatures to deceleration and cooling.
We say 'seemingly.' First, it pays to remember that trends are not predictions and don't go on forever - they change. Second, today's negative correlation could go positive in the not too distant future. And of course, third, whether it's positive or negative correlation it does not prove cause.
With those caveats stated, it is absolutely true that the consensus "physics" is not supported by the actual empirical climate evidence over more recent years. Also, the "clear and present danger" of global warming for the U.S. is a generous mix of hysteria, myth and fiction. Science factual truth is not in this mainstream mix it would appear.
Note: Using Excel and the U.S. temperature dataset from this source, one can calculate the monthly temperature anomalies from the absolute temperatures (used the 1901-2000 baseline for each month); Excel's slope function will then provide the trends for each time period; and then Excel can plot the resulting trend columns. This is the annual CO2 dataset used to calculate each period's average CO2 level. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Many stalwart advocates of the propaganda that global-warming-will-kill-us-all "tipping point" fiasco are currently eating some humble crow...their promise of the hottest U.S. year ever did not happen...and NOAA offers a simple answer as to why not.....
Per the Real Science climate site, this NOAA chart shows why the 'hottest-evah' did not happen in 2014.
Simply, well over half of the U.S. experienced cooler temperatures than normal.
And the warmer temperatures out west were more likely the result of an El Nino brewing than due to human CO2 emissions.
As this map suggests, CO2-caused "global" warming is highly suspect since normal regional weather/climate oscillations easily overwhelm its impact.
And as the satellites report, global warming over the last 18 years is not what one would call 'robust.'
Remember when those NASA/NOAA climate experts predicted a rapidly dangerous warming for Americans?...based on the last 15 years, coastal urban elites just might consider moving to fly-over-country where cooling rules...their dedication to the absurd beloved precautionary principle certainly seems to dictate this simple precaution.....
As this NOAA/NCDC regional climate map reveals, the vast majority of the continental U.S. has not warmed for the last 15 calendar years.
Specifically, for the entire continental U.S, the 2000-2014 calendar span has seen a -2.7°F/century cooling while 7 of the 9 climate regions had cooling or temperature trend stability.
However, there are two regions of the U.S. that have experienced warming trends - on the east and west coasts.
It is highly doubtful that global CO2 emissions would only affect these two geographic areas and not "global warm" the rest of the country. Objectively, it's more likely that there are other micro-regional climatic and human factors involved for the specific coastal state warmings.
Since 1997, the continental U.S. suffers from a significant cooling trend, per NOAA...will CO2 emissions be able to save us from the looming next ice age?.....
(click on image to enlarge)
As NOAA is now reporting, the U.S. is in the midst of an extended cooling trend - 18 years and counting.
According to the IPCC and 97% of all "expert" climate scientists, the explosive growth of CO2 emissions and other trace greenhouse gases should have caused accelerated warming, not cooling.
The cooling trend is at a -1.9°F per century for the last 18 years. And since the end of the 20th century, the cooling has accelerated to a -3.5°F trend/century (years 1999 thru 2014) . That would be a doubling-down on 'Ooops', so to speak.
2014 the "hottest" U.S. year ever meme? Nope, didn't happen. In fact, this past year turned out to be the 5th coolest during that 18-year period.
Here is an interesting task for any CO2-centric global warming/climate change alarmist:
Identify from the 1980-1990's a single NOAA/NCDC/NASA climate expert on the taxpayer dole, at that time, who publicly stated this was a likely result. And the billion-dollar+ government-funded climate model(s) that actually predicted this very inconvenient climate cooling outcome.
In front of cameras, a hot and sweaty James Hansen of NASA gave his famous global warmingEOTWAWKItestimony...lucky for the rest of us, this climate "expert" was spectacularly wrong.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
During a hot June 1988, NASA's James Hansen provided a provocative, stage-crafted testimony to the U.S. Senate.
His message? The world of 1988 was the hottest ever, since the 1800's, and it was due to humans' fossil fuel CO2 emissions; and more importantly, global warming would continue its upward path, rapidly getting worse and then becoming a threat to civilization unless CO2 emissions were constrained - i.e. reduced significantly.
Why his EOTWAWKI message? Because the modern crystal ball - his computer climate model simulations - told him so.
This chart plots the global temperatures using the most advanced, costly climate measuring technology provided to the scientific community by the American taxpayer. The empirical measurement evidence over the last 26.5 years since his testimony tells a different story than what Hansen predicted.
What do the satellites say? This state-of-the-art measurement technology ignores crystal ball predictions by experts and instead objectively reports that over the last 18 years "global warming" has been a non-issue. Despite record amounts of greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere, global warming has not accelerated and has not become a threat.
How bad were Hansen's computer model predictions?
In his testimony, he spoke of causation between global warming and CO2 emissions - the more CO2 released, the greater and faster temps will rise. Yet, over the last 18 years, the world has experienced a very tiny cooling trend, per the satellites. And the "causation"? Well...ahem...calculating the statistical correlation between global temperatures and CO2 ppm levels over the last 18 years produces a negative correlation, with a r2 of 0.0004.
Dr. Hansen does deserve credit however. The first 8.5 years after his testimony, satellites measured the global warming trend at a +1.22°C increase by 2100AD. And the r2 for temperatures and CO2 was 0.21 (note to climatologists of alarmism persuasion: one does not want to make predictions of catastrophe with this statistical attribute level).
The conclusion? The end of the global warming 'EOTWAWKI' as we know it, no? Damn those stubborn facts!
As the mainstream press gets ready to unleash an untold number of the "warmest year ever" propaganda stories for year-end 2014, it begs the question...in the context of long-term climate change, does the "warmest" or "coldest" for any given year matter in any meaningful way?...actually, it does not, per the empirical evidence.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The global warming slowdown (or "hiatus," "stall," "plateau," "pause" and etc.) has been widely discussed across a broad spectrum of web and print publications, including prominent science journals and peer-reviewed research, which indicates a 100% acceptance of the extended slowdown.
The realization and analysis of this lack of significant warming has produced a cornucopia of studies and expert opinions as to why the global climate went into a completely unexpected stall mode - so far, there are some 50+ scientific rationales that have been put forward to explain the phenomenon.
Since climate science remains unsettled, the current consensus is that there is a non-consensus regarding the globe's dramatic deviation form the CO2-centric "expert" climate models. Indeed, there is no shortage of empirical evidence documenting the ever-enlarging discrepancy.
Unfortunately, despite the indisputable and consensus scientific recognition that a temperature plateau exists, and the lively debate within science circles as to why, there are elite green alarmists who claim the 'standstill' is a hoax or does not exist - essentially, that is sheer climate-change denialism by deniers performing in anti-science, denialist roles.
On top of such denial travesties, the mainstream press is trying to change the focus away from the significance of the global warming slowdown and climate model failure to the incredibly small increase in warming that allows them to shout report that 2014 is the "warmest" year ever.
The term "warmest" (as in day, week, month, spring, summer, autumn, winter, year, decade and so on) has become the last propaganda refuge of those who either deny the global pause or just want everyone to forget its importance. Utilizing the terminology of "warmest" reveals the ultimate cherry-picking agenda.
However, since the Little Ice Age (LIA) end during the 1800's, the world has been constantly producing new "warmest-ever" records - it's entirely normal within the climate record, and will happen even when a temperature change hiatus exists.
To that point, both warm and cold years can coexist during longer periods of temperature stability, as multiple global and regional records demonstrate. In addition, it's unquestionable that severe/extreme weather events can take place, regardless if it is the "coldest" or "warmest" year.
As the adjacent chart depicts, rapid cooling and warming climate changes can occur very quickly. The chart plots both the acceleration and deceleration of temperatures (ie, per century trends) over moving 12-month periods (light red curve) since 1850.
Over short-term horizons, global temperatures have been known to accelerate/decelerate at a ±70°C rate.
Since 1999, there have been periods when temps increased at a +35°C/century rate, which would obviously produce some very warm years; while during the same 15-year span, there have been periods when temps decelerated ay -39°C/century rate, which would have obviously produced interim cold periods. This is what the empirical evidence shows.
Now think about that last paragraph. Over the last 15 years there has been incredible shifts in temp trends, yet the mainstream press doesn't report on that. Instead the press reports excessively about a given period being all of 1 to 2 hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year. The robust alarmist hysteria of "journalism" is sadly evident 24/7.
Okay, back to climate reality and the basic facts: Temperature changes. Trends increase, then decrease. It just happens. It's natural. It will continue to do so. And it has occurred since instrumental climate records have been kept and proxy temperature reconstructions have been created.
Speaking of instrumental records, back to the included chart for more evidence of extreme climate change. The HadCRUT4 instrumental record since 1850 shows some big extremes, which have been identified on the chart as those periods exhibiting temperature trends greater than ±50°C.
Those specific warming and cooling extreme incidents have been identified with the years they took place, and there are some common traits recognizable.
All the huge extreme changes took place over 40 years ago, with the vast majority being prior to 1950.
The huge CO2 emissions have not produced a single global warming acceleration extreme since 1951, over 60 years ago.
Since the 1970's, the climate extremes' range appears to be narrowing, with each accelerated warming and cooling trend rate getting smaller.
And when major (minor too) extremes occur, the climate system does not hit a "tipping point" of positive feedbacks. Instead, the natural climate responds with negative feedbacks to bring the climate back to some level of short equilibrium.
The chart also plots the moving 180-month (15 year) acceleration/deceleration of temperature trends (the dark blue curve).
Clearly, despite all the modern CO2 emissions, all the gyrations of the 12-month per century trends, and all the recent "warmest" years ever, the 15-year global warming trend has not deviated much from the past. Statistically, as of October 2014, that trend is below the median of all 180-month trends that took place in the past ( 1,801 1,799 trend datapoints to be exact).
Sidebar factoid: During 1922, the 15-year per century warming trend reached a level that was 3 times greater than today's 15-year trend - that is a trend sans the gigantic cumulative human CO2 emissions resident in today's atmosphere. Is 1922 the only pre-1950 period when the 15-year trend exceeds today's? Nope (remember, October 2014 is below the historical median).
What does all of the above mean?
Today's global warming is neither civilization-ending, dangerous, rapid, nor quickly accelerating. It continues at a long-term pace that humans have not markedly influenced, per the empirical evidence. Thus, the proper response to a claim of a new "warmest" year is appropriately: 'so what?'
As shown, those stubborn facts of empirical evidence are relentless. The continuing long-term, natural warming climate trend since the LIA has been a constant, yet combined with amazing short-term periods of abrupt change that produce exceptionally warm years and cold years.
These are the scientific climate facts. They are unequivocal, immutable, indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable and non-debatable. It's called natural climate. It happens.
Now, all of the above should not go without the following caveats: today's temperature trends are not forever. Trends are not predictions nor projections. As the plotted evidence indicates, the climate can change rapidly, going from cooling to warming back to cooling over short time spans. Any cool/warm trend has the potential to become a much longer, climate significant trend. And it's reasonable caveat to assume CO2 emissions have an impact, but likely a very trivial one (and easily overwhelmed) versus the natural climate change impact.
There is no expert (of course, that doesn't keep most experts from speculating) who can predict how much longer the pause will continue and whether it will morph into global cooling or a return to greater warming. And by the way, if the latter, many people are already debating that potential and what it will mean - more confirmation that climate science is never "settled."
When one connects the dots, so to speak, at the end of the day there have been absolutely zero climate models and/or experts that predicted the recent empirical climate outcomes that the above chart delineates - that's correct, none.
And finally, the infamous "97%" scientist consensus that CAGW proponents often fall back on when empirical evidence, such as above, eviscerates their CO2-warming alarmism, has been seriously and embarrassingly debunked, multiple times. Read here and here.
Note: Source for monthly HadCRUT4 anomalies used for chart. Utilized Excel to calculate 12-month and 180-month (moving) slopes (ie. trends), then multiplied by 1200 to produce per century trends. Then used Excel to plot per century trends.
In the previous 'C3' article, we looked at U.S. temperatures since 1988 when a NASA climate expert in U.S. senate testimony made predictions of near-future catastrophic climate change and, of course, dangerous global warming.
As the article documented, temperatures in the U.S. have essentially been at a standstill over the last 10+ years, and catastrophic climate change (with its millions of IPCC predicted "climate refugees") is nowhere to be found.
The end result is the undeniable evidence that America's climate records are non-consistent with the well publicized climate expert climate predictions, and also with the billion dollar super-computer models that experts and mainstream journalists claim to be climate-omniscient.
It begs the question: Is the non-consistent climate reality in the U.S. also found in other parts of the world?
Turns out that the UK climate records, as represented by the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, reveals the same expert abject failures and non-consistency with model simulations. "Rapid" and "dangerous" accelerated warming hasn't taken place there either.
Unlike the continental U.S., with its abundance of micro and regional climates, the small island area of Great Britain affords less climate variety yet produces similar warming/cooling trends over the recent past.
Like the U.S. dataset plots, the CET dataset is for the full 26 years (312 months through Nov. 2014) since late 1988 when both UK and U.S. catastrophic climate proponents initiated their public fearmongering campaign - the year of James Hansen's scare-testimony.
The adjacent UK chart depicts both the plots for 60-month temperature and CO2 averages. Clearly, the predicted rise in temperature due to higher CO2 levels has not happened - this is not consistent with any climate model simulation that the experts tout.
With a r2 of 0.00 between monthly CO2 and temperatures values, the UK climate records also confirm the legitimate dismissal of the argument that CO2 acts as a "control knob" - some type of global temperature thermostat that UN elite bureaucrats and national politicians thought they could just dial for a desired climate.
And that "warming" trend for the last 13 years that just scares-the-poopie out of UK's elites? A -4.8°C per century...yep, a significant cooling trend.
In summary, the combined CET and U.S. climate records add to the empirical evidence disproving the hyperbole for CO2-caused disastrous global warming and catastrophic climate change. In reality the hyperbole is without any scientific validation.
Damn those stubborn facts.
Additional global and regional temperature charts exhibiting the lack of CO2 influence.
Note: UK CET monthly temperature dataset can be downloaded from here. CET provides absolute temperatures and these can be converted to anomalies using a 1901-2000 baseline averages that can be readily calculated. The 1901-2000 baseline was chosen since previous article about US temps used that baseline. Plots, averages and trends produced by Excel.
The mainstream media's current du jour "climate science" claim is that 2014 is headed towards being the world's "warmest" year, ever.
Unfortunately, for the media that pushes the hysterical, that claim is actually without statistical merit, since the uncertainty error bars are large. In statistical terms, there's a darn good chance it's not the warmest year.
Then there is the jumbo elephant in the press room that "journalists" flat-out don't acknowledge, let alone report: the state-of-the-art climate satellite technology completely undercuts the world's "warmest year" hype.
And then there is the whole issue of where exactly is all this "dangerous," "out-of-control" warming taking place. For example, is it happening here in the U.S.?
Based on the multitude of anti-science, exaggerated "warmest-year-ever" paragraphs being produced by American reporters, one would think the good citizens of the U.S. are in the midst of the civilization-ending climate-fry.
But, as usual, the empirical evidence reveals the absolute distortions the media fabricates, per the latest U.S. climate records from NOAA.
Case in point: the adjacent graph is a plot for the last 26 years (312 months) of U.S. temperatures through November 2014 - since 1988. The red curve is a 60-month average that clearly indicates "global warming" in the U.S. has gone AWOL for at least a decade - on 'hiatus,' so to speak.
Then there is the 60-month plot of CO2 emissions (black dots), which obviously tells a different story then the press fabrication that the "rapid" global warming we are "suffering" from is a direct result of human CO2 emissions.
Hmmm...clearly temperatures do not react to CO2 as those crack science reporters "report."
This NOAA empirical evidence is unequivocal and indisputable, yet the mainstream media refuses to inform the American public of these most basic climate record facts.
So why did we pick 1988 as a starting point for this analysis?
Back in the summer of 1988, NASA had its climate expert, James Hansen, testify before the U.S. Senate. In his testimony, he predicted that across the world temperatures would rise dangerously due to human's increasing CO2 emissions.
As a result of the accelerating temperatures, Hansen foretold of major climate catastrophes that would plague the U.S. and the world within 20 some years, if business-as-usual CO2 emissions were not curtailed.
It's now 26 years later, and as the above graph depicts, global warming has stalled; CO2 emissions have not been curtailed in the least. And for the U.S. (look closely at the graph), continental temperatures actually experienced a cooling trend stretching over a decade.
The dramatic climate change disasters that NASA and Hansen predicted? Not even close to happening.
And those are the stubborn facts - much to the chagrin of the UN bureaucrats, national government elites and mainstream hacks journalists.
Additional global and regional temperature charts exhibiting the lack of CO2 influence.
Note: US temperature dataset can be downloaded from here. NOAA/NCDC reports absolute temperatures and these can be converted to anomalies using the 1901-2000 baseline averages that NOAA provides.
As decades of climate-doomsday cult 'AGW' propaganda have made abundantly clear, the world is supposedly endangered from rising human CO2 emissions...that produces a corresponding rapid and accelerarting global warming...which then results in CAGW hell for civilization...unfortunately for the IPCC (and alarmists), their own empirical evidence refutes the hypothesis and eviscerates the entire concept that CO2 is some sort of "control knob" thermostat for Mother Earth....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Simply stated, the climate reality facts do not bode well for those who still promulgate that Earth's environment is in 'crash & burn' mode from human CO2 emissions.
Whether it is the unanimous opinion by scientists regarding the 18-year "global warming" pause; or the last 9 years for the complete lack of major hurricanes; or the inexplicable and surprisingly thick Antarctic sea ice; or the boring global sea level rise that is a tiny fraction of coastal-swamping magnitude; or food crops exploding with record production; or multiple other climate signals - it is now blatantly obvious the current edition of the AGW hypothesis is highly suspect.
Not only is the AGW hypothesis invalidated by close to twenty years of empirical evidence, the CO2 as a "control knob" concept has been shed of any practical merit.
This has been discussed multiple times at 'C3' over recent years. Now, stepping back a few decades, during a 1988 Congressional staged testimony - conspiracy to mislead comes to mind - the top NASA climate expert predicted that 'business as usual' CO2 emissions would cause rapid and accelerated global warming.
Eventually, building on that 1988 performance, other climate experts developed a hypothesis that CO2 acted as the proverbial control-knob thermostat for the global temperature.
But in reality, is that even remotely accurate?
The above reality chart of empirical evidence affirms what the IPCC truly does not want to discuss: the "control-knob" concept is literally a myth.
The chart plots two-year temperature changes since 1988, with the respective two-year CO2 changes (ppm). It has been 26 years since that testimony-performance, thus there are 13 two-periods plotted on the chart. In addition, the linear trend for the HadCRUT4 gold-standard temperature dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset are shown moving in opposite directions.
There is no doubt. The increasing CO2 changes are not producing the requisite increasing temperature changes, as predicted. Visually, the correlation between the two appears very lame, at best. The actual r2 is a meager 0.12 - yes, that's two plus decades of statistical nothingness.
Conclusion: Those stubborn climate facts are not kind to the ever-fading, CO2-induced global warming hypothesis. Climate change is always happening but it is highly unlikely that the miniscule trace-gas CO2 is a major driver (sure, a minor player, but not one that controls the world's fate). Time for policymakers to abandon the control-knob myth and instead focus on adaption preparation for all types of climate change.
Additional global and regional temperature charts exhibiting the lack of CO2 influence.
Note: The chart plots and linear trends were created using Excel, and the HadCRUT4 dataset and NOAA CO2 dataset. The plots cover discrete two-year periods, starting with October 1988. The CO2 change is scaled to one-tenth of actual (so that temp changes are visually apparent). Hey, don't know how to chart the above in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The answers: Nope; Nope; Nope; Nope; and Nope...and the questions: "Does CO2 regulate global temperatures?"; "Does CO2 perform as global warming control knob?"; "Does CO2 act like the world's thermostat?"; "Does CO2 cause rapid and dangerous global warming?"; and, "Does CO2 produce accelerating global temps?" - the recent satellite empirical evidence provides the answers, much to the chagrin of the climate-doomsday cult proponents.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This chart plots the global warming trends versus CO2 growth trends over a wide variety of time periods (last 30 years through the last 10 years, as of 10/31/2014).
As one can easily discern, while CO2 growth is exploding up, global temperature trends are collapsing over the same time.
In essence, the warming temperature trends have decelerated into cooling trends.
Visually, it is clear that modern CO2 growth has affected temperatures contrary to the predictions of the IPCC and AGW alarmists. In fact, the correlation between the CO2 and temp trends is negative.
Simply put, the trace gas CO2 does not regulate temperature; it does not act like a control knob or thermostat; and the greater growth in CO2 levels has not caused accelerated, dangerous warming.
Those are the stubborn facts. And it does not matter how many IPCC climate "experts" claim that CO2 is a 'control knob' or how many computer virtual simulations predict future dangerous temperatures based on CO2 being a 'regulator.' The climate reality of satellite empirical evidence falsifies those wildly speculative claims.
And it's not just the satellite empirical evidence that reveals the ongoing CO2/temperature disconnect.
Note: Download the source RSS and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, per century trends (slope function), and chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Well...er...be happy, unless the long-term global temperature deceleration continues into a miserable and dangerous global cooling situation...as the GISS (NASA) empirical evidence indicates, CO2-caused "catastrophic" global warming is an absolute non-issue..... (click on below chart to enlarge)
What happens when one plots the GISS global temperature and CO2 trends for the long-term periods ending September 30, 1999 and September 30, 2014?
Yes, one gets the above two charts, revealing interesting, empirical climate science truths, such as:
1. The chart on the left (for periods ending Sept. 1999) reveals an acceleration of global warming trends, while the CO2 growth trends (see black dotted curve) across periods were fairly stable.
2. The chart on the right (for periods ending Sept. 2014) reveals a deceleration of global temperature change that over the 'last 10 years' reached a very slight global cooling status; yet, as can be seen, the CO2 growth trend was accelerating, reaching a rate robustly greater than those periods ending in 1999.
3. Other than a single datapoint (blue column), all the long-term temperature trends for the left chart exhibit warming greater than 1.5 degrees per century; in contrast, the majority of trends (blue columns) for the right chart are below 1.5 degree per century, despite faster CO2 growth and the associated higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
4. Rapid, dangerous, scary, undeniable, indisputable, irreversible, accelerating and catastrophic global warming claims made by various politicians, scientists, bureaucrats, celebrities and "journalists" are unequivocal lies. Long-term global temperature trends below 2 degrees (and going lower) are clearly the opposite of those widely-used, deceptive descriptors.
5. If it was not obvious before, CO2 is not a global "control knob" nor some type of "planet thermostat" - CO2 does not have much, if any, influence on temperature trends.
6. Confirming what climate skeptics (often called "deniers" for denigration purposes) have been stating for the last several decades, the climate changes constantly, primarily from natural forces. As a result, global temperature trends change frequently, exhibiting both cooling and warming modes across time spans.
We call it 'natural' climate change and ancient and historical climate records are replete with it. It happens often and, my goodness, it can be really extreme.
Now some caveats. The charts display a wide variety of temperature trends - they are not predictions for the future. They represent a snapshot in time and can change quickly.
One cannot conclude from the right chart that global temperatures will continue to decelerate into a glacial freezer. That would be exactly the same mistake that the climate "experts" made with the chart on the left - concluding that the temperature trends would just keep accelerating until hellish warmth would end-civilization-as-we-know-it.
And, these two charts cannot be used to claim that humans have no influence on global temperatures. Besides emissions of greenhouse gases, humans are constantly changing their environment which does have an impact (e.g. turning a corn field into an asphalt parking lot or massive deforestation in the world's major tropical rainforests or laying down a carpet of black soot on ice sheets).
Putting aside any further caveats, as an added bonus, the charts can be used to identify climate-liars. These are personalities and organizations that would never publish temperature charts as seen here. Instead, they resort to visual or verbal representations that today, or this month, or this year was the 'warmest' ever. This is not only the worst kind of cherry-picking, it is also incredibly lame.
Since the Little Ice Age (LIA), the world has been warming. It will continue to do so. Thus, we are going to keep experiencing warm(er) and warm(est) events - it's a no-brainer due to natural warming rebound. It will only stop happening when the world enters another mini ice age or worse. Those are the stubborn facts, which essentially makes CO2's trivial influence irrelevant.
When one hears the 'warmest' or 'warmer' refrains, that is when it becomes apparent one is in the company of a climate deception-meister.
Finally, let's all hope the global temperature deceleration shown on the right-most chart stops before it gets really ugly.
Note: Temperature dataset and CO2 dataset used to produce Excel charts and 2nd order fitted trend of the trends. Excel's slope function was used to caluclate each period's trend, then multipled by 1200 to produce a per century trend. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The well documented 'pause' for the global warming trend over the last 15+ years has generated over 50 hypothetical science explanations...the latest cloud coverage analysis appears to be a better explanation.....
(click on to enlarge)
Greenhouse gases, including CO2, looking less and less the major drivers of global temperatures and climate change.
When objective (non-IPCC) science research is done, without the political agenda, Earth's climate seems dominated by natural forces.
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
If CO2-induced climate change is defined as extreme weather disasters, then recent years are proving to be a bust...likewise, the much feared rapid and ferocious global warming predicted - from CO2, of course - has turned into an insignificant pussy cat, per the GISS/NASA climate records.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
By year 2050, how much warmer will it be?
As the climate "experts" and $billion$ computer models have proven decisively, they are completely clueless when it comes to predicting future global temperatures.
Fifteen years ago, this graph's red curve, representing temperature trends, was tracking right along with the CO2 grey curve - such that, as of the end of September 1999, the 10-year temp trend was on a 2050AD warming pace of +1.1ºC.
But as the adjacent chart now reveals, by end of September 2014, that previous +1.1ºC trend has changed to a -0.03ºC cooling trend despite the continuous acceleration of atmospheric CO2 levels. A powerful testament to the overwhelming significance of natural climate change that far exceeds the influence of of a trace gas such as CO2.
And remember, not a single IPCC or NASA/GISS "expert" predicted this outcome - just the opposite in fact.
As the graph's red plot depicts, global warming trends have been on a deceleration path for an extended period, indicating a strong likelihood that global warming by 2050 will be nowhere close to he current official predictions.
Did we mention 'pussy cat' warming yet?
Obviously, the "settled" science of slam-dunk global warming is in shambles. And natural climate change made it so, much to the chagrin of those elites pushing "consensus" anthropogenic dogma.
Without doubt, in the scheme of urgent, priority issues facing the nation - global warming ain't one of them, which the American public already knows and reflects.
Climate change, as represented by global cooling and global warming trends, is in a constant flux...the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset provides the empirical proof that a natural cycle of ups and downs is the reality - past, present & future.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
How much global warming (or cooling) will take place by 2050AD?
The flat-out, scientific truth is that nobody really knows. Not the IPCC. Not the climate models. Not the experts. And certainly not the green crony-facilitators, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben (fyi...crony Al Gore just loves them to death.)
This chart plotting the IPCC's gold-standard (HC4) of global temperature trends, of past and present, reveals why it is so incredibly difficult to predict climate change, be it of short or long-term nature. Climate change is constantly happening - going from one warming acceleration to the next cooling acceleration extreme, rather rapidly.
And note, this takes place regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels (see black curve), and associated human CO2 emissions. Clearly, the skyrocketing CO2 levels since the 1950's are not responsible for such wide variance in temperature trends, since they can even be observed a century before.
In fact, based on a visual inspection, one could surmise that climate change extreme trends have lessened since the modern increase of CO2 levels.
As can be seen, shorter cooling/warming trends have been highly variable from the very start of recording instrumentally-measured "global" temperatures. The light red (12-mth) and green (60-mth) plots readily show this.
So, when did the greatest acceleration of warming trends take place? Amazingly, all the warming spikes that matched or equaled ±20°C took place (see yellow-tinted boxes) prior to the last 40 years of massive human CO2 emissions.
Regarding the 10, 20 and 30-year climate change variability, there is no question that the wild and natural extremes of the short-term always return to a rather mundane long-term variability. The dark blue, cyan and bright red plots indicate long-term climate change that is...well...pretty mundane.
Compared to a 12-month climate change extreme trend of +25.0°C reached in 1878, the 30-year trend extreme only reached a maximum of +0.72°C (during 2003) and has now been reduced to a August 2014 30-year trend of 0.61°C - and relative to the 1940's, that's a trend only eight-hundredths of a degree greater.
Conclusion: Climate change never stops. Whether short-term or long-term, global temperature trends constantly accelerate/decelerate. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this extreme variability - it is a natural phenomenon that is chaotic, totally unpredictable and unstoppable. The climate change indicated by today's temperature trends is insignificantly different than the past climate change. And those are the stubborn facts.
Note: Linear temperature trends do not represent predictions (any trend today can be drastically different in the future). Excel's slope function was used to calculate the moving trends for each time span (by month) and to plot them. To calculate the trends by 2050AD, the derived slope for each month and each time-span trend was multiplied by 424 months (after August 2014, there are only 424 full months until January 1, 2050AD). HadCRUT4 global dataset and CO2 (ppm) datasets used for chart can be found here.
Ahhh, those stubborn facts...it's now been two decades+ that the public has been warned about the existing dangerous and rapidly accelerating global temperatures...a warming that was supposed to produce catastrophic doomsday climate changes...except it hasn't happened, which the gold-standard of global surface temperatures document.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Has two-decades worth of cumulative CO2 growth in the atmosphere caused the "experts'" predicted dangerous and rapidly accelerating global warming?
That's the straight-forward question.
And the straight-forward answer is?
Well, despite all that CO2 growth, global warming has slowed to a creep on the Earth's surface, and in the atmosphere, global warming has flat-lined.
Using the IPCC's gold-standard global surface dataset (the UK's HadCRUT4), this chart plots the cumulative growth in temperature along with NOAA's reported cumulative growth in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm).
For CO2 (grey curve), there is a clear and consistent upward growth of CO2 levels - unrelenting would be an apt description. In contrast, global temperatures are all over the map, with highs and low being constantly...er, variable.
The end results over the 20 years ending August 2014 are fairly obvious:
The visual relationship between CO2 and global temperatures appears to be very weak; in fact, statistically the r2 is 0.19, which can be interpreted as being close to a zilch relationship.
Per both the 2nd order fitted trend (blue curve) and the 36-month moving average (red curve), the deceleration of the global warming trend and a plateauing can easily be seen.
Over the 20 years, there have been exceptional warm(-est!) months/years, often followed by exceptional cool months/years.
And since September 1994, the exhibited warming trend amounts to a measly increase of a non-doomsday +0.38°C by year 2050AD.
How easy is it to say, three times quickly?: catastrophe-climate-doomsday-cult-is-discredited.
So, does all the above empirical evidence mean that human CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Nope. Does it mean the world will no longer warm? Does it mean humans don't have an impact on continuous natural climate change? Nope. Does it mean that the world should quit trying to be energy and carbon efficient? Not at all.
What it does mean, though, is that the public and the policymakers were greatly deceived by the "consensus" science and computer models that loudly declared (and btw, still do) imminent disasters and doomsday global warming.
As the current climate conditions now indicate a slow, creeping climate change scenario, it provides policymakers and the public the luxury of time to continue moving to a more carbon-efficient economy, thus improving the environment without needlessly sacrificing quality of life and living standards.
In summary, it's another case of those stubborn facts: the empirical evidence does not lie; but computer models and "experts" do.
Note: Download HC4 and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, trends and chart. The chart covers 240 monthly records, starting with Sept. 1994. For this graph, both the temperature and CO2 datapoints were set to zero; then the cumulative changes for both were plotted each month - does not affect linear trends when done this way.
We've been told by the climate experts that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels will cause Earth to warm rapidly and dangerously, to the point where civilization's existence was threatened...but what if these "experts" were completely wrong and there is actual empirical evidence to prove them wrong?....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Well, the NOAA empirical evidence from their global temperature dataset indicates that longer term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels are definitely not producing anywhere near the expected long-term changes in global temps, as predicted.
Indeed, "wrong" is likely an understatement.
As a result, the experts' CO2-induced CAGW IPCC hypothesis is revealed for its true nature - basically, a hypothetical nothing-burger.
Let's be clear: the actual NOAA empirical evidence, from the global temperature climate instrumental records, does not support the hypothesis that long-term changes in atmospheric CO2 levels produce rapid accelerating, dangerous global temperature changes.
The adjacent graph of 10-year CO2 change plots, and concurrent 10-year change in NOAA global temperatures, is unequivocal: there is no correlation between the two, unless one wants to argue that a r2 of 0.08 somehow indicates a strong relationship.
The chart includes a 60-month average (purple) curve of the 10-year temp changes; likewise there is a similar average curve (dark grey) for the 10-year CO2 changes. Obviously, these curves show no relationship and essentially are now moving in opposing directions. The purple curve (temps) reflects a pattern of climate ups and downs, while the grey curve (CO2) since 1960 suggests an exponential growth situation.
In addition, it has been noted on the chart when extreme 10-year temperature changes have taken place - those rare increasing/decreasing temp changes that equal or exceed +0.6/-0.6°C. There have been 8 such events, 6 of which took place prior to 1960 (see light-yellow boxes on chart).
Hmm...what's that you say?...growing human CO2 emissions have caused a greater frequency of extreme climate incidents during the modern era? Ahem...a definitive 'Nope!' will suffice at this point.
In summary, if long-term changes in atmospheric (ppm) CO2 levels caused long-term changes in global temperatures, then the chart would have plots of the two principal change datasets tracking each other - in reality though, they're demonstrably different.
The NOAA empirical evidence strongly undercuts the CAGW hypothesis and, btw, demonstrates for the related hypothesis (which states that CO2 acts as a climate thermostat/control knob) is laughable nonsense.
Does all of the above indicate that human emissions have zero influence of global temperature changes? In fact, it does not indicate that; instead, it indicates that the CAGW hypothesis is without factual merit and that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is likely significantly lower than the IPCC "experts" proposed.
With all that said, the data strongly suggest, at best, a rather trivial CO2-influence on longer-term temperature change and its being indisputably non-dangerous.
Note: Temperature dataset; CO2 datasets. Excel was used to calculate 10-yr changes (ie. differences); to calculate r2 using the slope 'correl' function; and to produce plots and 60-mth average curves. To calculate a 10-yr. temp. change example: subtract the August 2004 temp. anomaly from the August 2104 anomaly. The same subtraction method is used to calculate 10-yr. CO2 level (ppm) changes. Starting with January 1890, the 10-yr chg. calculations can be made for each subsequent month, resulting in 1,496 'decadal' datapoints (NOAA monthly dataset commences at January 1880). Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.