Global warming theorists now claim that Arctic sea ice melt causes colder and snowier winters - the empirical evidence indicates that it must also cause colder oceans, a definite AGW negative feedback
(click on images to enlarge)
These Bob Tisdale charts of ocean temperatures through January 2012 are most enlightening. To summarize the data plotted on the charts, ocean temperatures, as represented by the Southern, South Pacific and global measurements, clearly show a decline since the 1998 El Niño event. The Southern Ocean (aka the Antarctica Ocean) has experienced a very significant decline in temperature since the early 2000's.
Sooo...per the logic of the typical global warming alarmist, the Arctic sea ice melt from human CO2 emissions does the following, from one Polar region to its geographic opposite:
In essence, the tortured logic of the ever-changing alarmist climate change theories literally leads one to conclude that global cooling weather events are the natural negative feedback to AGW.
Of course, no IPCC climate change report (so far) has remotely stated the above. But the actual climate empirical evidence (ie, non-warming world, lower ocean temps) and cold weather events has now forced CO2-centric global warming alarmists into a pretzeled logic that ultimately supports the overall negative feedbacks of global climate as understood by CAGW-skeptics, not the positive feedbacks pushed by the IPCC.
Despite a warm 2012 January in the U.S., overall January temperatures over the last 15 years have fallen off a cliff - falling at a minus seventeen degrees per century rate
For many in the U.S., this past January was a pleasant weather experience as the recent years' frigid winter temperatures took residence in other parts of the world. Here's a typical winter weather story that other geographical regions have experienced:
"Germany’s no. 1 daily Bild reports on the Killer Cold now paralyzing Europe and Asia, and calls it the worst in 25 years. The cold has hit Eastern Europe especially hard, with temperatures plummeting to -30°C throughout the Ukraine and Poland. So far the cold has claimed 139 lives, with 3 in Germany...In Serbia, over 6 feet of snow have fallen over the last few weeks. In Turkey heavy snows have have blanketed much of the country...new cold record had been set in Finland: minus 39°C was recorded in Northern Finland....In the Urals and Siberia, the temperature fell to -40C while in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, a forecaster told Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency the wind-chill factor meant the real temperature was down to -52C..."
Fortunately, the continental U.S. was spared that awful winter weather this January. But as the above chart shows, our warm January did not do too much to change the long-term cooling that the month of January has brought us - that 'January month' cooling trend (blue arrow) is still in a spectacular double-digit per century rate decline.
When all months are included (not just January), the U.S. has experienced a cooling trend contrary to all "consensus" CO2-based climate predictions; this second chart shows the moving 12-month period over the last 15 years (180 months) through January 2012.
The 15-year period ending in January was the 5th warmest in the past 15 years; for all January months on record, it was the 4th warmest since 1895.
Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Charts from NOAA / NCDC site. (click on charts to enlarge)
The global warming and climate change debate waging in the pages of the WSJ and blogs exposes public to embarrassing "consensus" climate science failures
(click on images to enlarge)
This past week has seen a war of words breakout in the WSJ pages (here and here) between non-alarmists and alarmists. Although nearly 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age and that humans do have an influence on climate, the public (via the WSJ) has now been witness to the unbelievably lame argument made by global warming alarmist scientists.
As "97%" of the world populace knows, the IPCC has falsely prophesied for the last two decades that human CO2 emissions are causing "runaway" warming that is resulting in a climate "tipping point." As the above two charts clearly indicate, the IPCC climate model prediction of runaway warming has been immensely wrong.
The leftmost chart tracks HadCRUT annual global temperatures (light purple) versus the IPCC's climate model predictions. The blue, red and green curves are temperature projections if CO2 emissions continued "as is" and the orange curve is if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. (Light purple dotted line is anticipated anomaly by 2025 per the HadCRUT linear trend.)
Obviously, the observed global temperatures are robustly below all the climate model scenarios anticipated, even with actual CO2 emissions continuing their "business-as-usual" growth.
The second chart (rightmost) plots absolute annual global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 30 years, since January 1, 1982. The IPCC models and alarmists envision that global temperatures could exceed 20°C by year 2100 due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels - this chart puts the last 30 years in that alarmist context.
Per the linear trend of the last 30 years (1.58°C/century), global temperatures are on a path to reach 15.75°C by 2100, a maximum that is a fraction of the IPCC's much publicized catastrophic predictions. The blue curve is the 5-year average of annual temperature change - this is the actual outcome versus the scary "runaway," "tipping point" global warming that all alarmist scientists believed was occurring during the recent "warmest" decades.
Speaking of "warmest," this is now the go-to-scary-word of alarmist "consensus" scientists. Literally, they have been forced to use this lame adjective because of the embarrassing empirical evidence. In essence, "warmest" (take your pick - day, month, quarter, year and decade) replaces words such as "accelerating," "rapid" and "runaway" warming, which are demonstrably false.
Indeed, the lameness of the underlying AGW "science" has become palpable.
The catastrophic (CAGW) theory is empirically a very lame theory
Global warming is not rapid, accelerating or runaway
Since 1850 the per century linear trend is +0.43°C (+0.34°C by 2100AD)
Last 30 years, the per century linear trend is +1.58°C (+1.40°C by 2100AD)
Last 15 years, the per century linear trend is +0.34°C (+0.29°C by 2100AD)
Last 10 years, the per century linear trend is -0.72°C (-0.63°C by year 2100AD)
The IPCC and the typical CAGW alarmist claims all sorts of magical powers for CO2-induced global warming - per the data NASA / GISS data though, none are true
The above blinking chart (created here) shows four different short-term linear trends (five years ending 1998, 2003, 2007 & 2011) for NASA/GISS surface temperatures. The latest 5-year trend ending 2011 is +0.36°C per century rate.
The long-term trend (+0.60°C per century rate) since 1880 is higher than 5-yr period ending 2011.
The current 5-year trend is below the long-term trend
There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been moderately negative (cooling rate)
There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been highly positive (warming rate)
Atmospheric CO2 levels keep increasing across every short-term period at approximately the same per century rate
Atmospheric CO2 does not cause global temperatures to be: unequivocal, irreversible, accelerating or significantly warming on a permanent basis
Recent global warming could convert to global cooling very quickly (in a span of a few years) regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels
Robust global warming (cooling) is not "incontrovertible"
The IPCC's "Climate Bible" relies on the HadCRUT (HC) global temperature dataset for its analysis - the last 100 years of HC data reveals the weak CO2 and global warming relationship
A previous 'C3' post regarding CO2 and NOAA / NCDC global temperatures generated a lot of interest, especially the second chart titled: "The Case Against CO2." That chart revealed that CO2's impact on global temperatures was essentially very weak over the last 50 years, ending 2011, versus the prior 50 years ending 1961.
We received questions as to how the famous HadCRUT (the IPCC's favorite global temperature dataset) compared to the previously used NOAA/NCDC dataset. The adjacent chart shows the result of switching to the all important HC data.
As one can discern from this chart, the result is essentially the same for the two datasets (see previous NOAA/NCDC chart).
The 50-year period ending 1961 had little CO2 growth, yet global temperatures increased significantly more than the "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming of the 50-year period ending 2011.
The growth of CO2 levels has an inconsistent effect on global temperatures suggesting the CO2 and temperature relationship is not robust - it is actually frail
Global temperatures are not "accelerating" because of CO2 during the last 50 years
Modern global warming over last 50 years was not "unprecedented" versus earlier periods
Other climate dynamics and inputs primarily drive temperature and climate change - the trace gas CO2 has only a trace impact in comparison
Many global warming alarmist scientists make the claim that CO2 is the world's thermostat - NOAA climate evidence totally debunks that bogus claim
The urban myth of the all powerful climate trace gas CO2 has led both alarmist climate scientists and EPA bureaucrats with political agendas to actually claim that CO2 is like a furnace's thermostat. Just dial the increase/decrease of CO2 change desired, and like a furnace, the earth's temperature will respond up/down accordingly.
That claim is robust, bogus political propaganda with zero scientific merit, as NOAA's empirical science collection efforts have well established. (click chart to enlarge)
This chart plots actual annual changes in atmospheric levels (from 1880 through 2011) versus actual annual changes in NOAA/NCDC global temperatures for the same time period. As can be seen, the annual change in CO2 (the black columns) have little if any impact of annual temp change (the red-orange curve). The R^2 measurement of the CO2 and temperature relationship is a meager +0.016 - that would be a R^2 of teeny-weeny proportions (essentially there is no cause and effect relationship).
The longer term view supports that finding also. The green curve on the chart is the 20-year average of CO2 level changes; the blue curve is the 20-year average of global temperature changes. Clearly, changes in CO2 are not driving changes in temperatures - CO2 is not a "thermostat".
Global annual temperature changes are not a result of changes in CO2 levels
CO2 is not some magical global thermostat
Other climate dynamics drive major temperature change and climate change
The above conclusions do not preclude CO2 having a consistently minor, beneficial warming influence on global temperatures
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2
(click on images to enlarge)
The AGW alarmist claim of "accelerating" global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data - the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).
The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS "acceleration" and "deceleration."
From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.
These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting "accelerating" warming.
Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.
Global temperatures are decelerating, not accelerating
Rising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increase
Climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robust
IPCC predictions of "runaway" temps and climate "tipping points" are without empirical merit
Science elites and their mainstream press comrades have been pushing the fantasy of rapid, accelerating global warming - NOAA proves they were lying
The claim that human CO2 causes rapid, accelerating global warming is empirically a very bogus statement.
As evident by the adjacent NOAA / NCDC data, the "accelerating" warming claim is without merit - it is a literally a myth that MSM reporters and establishment science elites use to serve their political agenda purposes.
As the orange circles indicate, annual temperature change constantly fluctuates between positive and negative values, and the blue 10-year average reveals zero "accelerated" warming. The growth of CO2 levels (grey columns and curve) reveals little influence on temperature change.
To put this in real world context, think about it this way:
1. If a portfolio manager said the orange circles represent accelerating investment returns, year after year, that person would likely be incarcerated or institutionalized for blatant fraud.
2. If the Google CEO told his board of the directors that the orange circles represent accelerating growth of Google profits, year after year, the board (even board member Al Gore) would have no choice but to fire the CEO for either gross stupidity or robust lying.
Is it any wonder that the American public trust in the mainstream press and the climate science establishment continues to plunge?
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just released today their global temperature dataset for the year ending 2011 (and yes, they conducted another bizarre revision of the entire historical dataset - more on that in a later posting). (click on images to enlarge)
The chart on the left plots the NCDC global temperatures for the last 15 years ending 2011, plus the atmospheric CO2 levels. As the empirical evidence undeniably shows, there is no correlation between global temps and CO2, and the blue curve actually suggests a movement towards a cooling era.
The linear trend for the NCDC temperatures represents an increase by year 2100 of only +0.40°C degree - definitely not "accelerating" warming using anyone's definition. (see new post on "accelerating" here)
The measly "global warming" of the last 15 years is one story and another interesting story about global warming is found in looking at the last 100 years. When the 100 year span is broken into 50-year segments, one ending 2011 and the other ending 1961, the myth of dangerous global warming from human CO2 emissions really starts to unravel. (see update with HadCRUT temperature data)
The first red bar on second chart (chart on right) represents the increase of the 2011 mean temperature over that of 1961; the second red bar represents the increase of the 1961 mean temperature over that of 1911. Clearly, the increase of the mean temperature during the first 50-year period surpasses that of the last 50-year period ending 2011.
And the greater increase in mean temperature during the first 50 year period took place with a smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as depicted by the grey bars. In fact, the CO2 level increase over the last 50 years was greater than 4 times the earlier 50-year period.
The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.
Summary: Both global warming and cooling have happened in the recent past, and both will occur again over the next 100 years, regardless of CO2 emissions.
Latest EU satellite measurements puts sea rise at meager 2.7 inch rate by 2100 and NOAA can't find global warming in the oceans
Empirical evidence is a real bitch for 'big green' and the IPCC Climategate scientists, and, of course, James Hansen.
Per the trends, sea levels will be 2.7 inches higher in 2100 with ocean temperatures being lower by -0.5°C. (Note: trends are not predictions)
Since late 2003 the EU has had its own satellite to measure sea levels. With that new technology, they have determined that the sea's are barely rising (see blue curve in chart), in contrast to the prediction of "accelerating" sea level increases by the IPCC's minions, and the prediction of "boiling" ocean temperatures by others.
Boiling oceans!!!? Yup...James Hansen, a climate "expert," has recently been caught on video actually claiming that if ocean temperatures continue their trend they will begin to boil - see video here. This is the Madoff-style climate science that the elites eagerly swallow hook, line and sinker.
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts
As the adjacent chart shows, atmospheric CO2 levels have been methodically rising. Per the IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts, the rising CO2 should cause a water vapor "tipping point" that would cause "runaway" warming. It hasn't, on both counts.
The bold blue curve reveals atmospheric relative humidity actually decreasing (less water vapor) over the last 17 years since the end of 1994. The bold red curve represents the slowing growth of atmospheric warming, as measured by NASA's own satellite.
In essence, the fabled positive feedback the climate models use does not exist, and climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is robustly lower than assumed.
If the 17-year satellite linear trend were to continue unchanged, the global temperature increase by year 2100 would be only +1.13 degrees, well below the IPCC's minimum prediction. The last 10-year linear trend (not shown in chart) indicates an increase of a measly +0.3 degrees for global temps by 2100, which would be barely perceptible.
Simply stated, the IPCC can't predict squat, especially anything to do with climate changes due to human CO2. Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
In addition, a new peer reviewed study found that over the last 30 years the Antarctica snowmelt has been trending down, which substantiates the observed cooler temperatures as the above plots show.
"Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades.....The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states, "other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability." Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf." [P. Kuipers Munneke, G. Picard, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, E. van Meijgaard 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Despite massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the last 60 years, the long-term trend remains well below a one degree (+0.26°C) increase per century rate.
As the inset chart reveals, the more recent 10-year trend has the representative UK region cooling at an amazing -8.7°C per century rate (a -7.7°C decrease by year 2100).
The following chart is a plot of one-year temperature changes (moving 12-month), with the historical CO2 levels depicted. Clearly, one-year temperature changes are not getting larger, and ever larger, as an "accelerated" warming climate would require.
The red curve is a twenty-year average of the temperature changes, which indicates no long-term influence on CET temperature change by CO2 levels, natural or human.
Conclusion: UK citizens need not worry about "rapid," "accelerating" and "irreversible" warming. There is no credible empirical evidence supporting such CO2-AGW alarmism.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Data Sources: CET & CO2. Charts created with Excel. Note: Linear trends are not predictions.
Due to the incredibly bad reporting by the mainstream press, many Americans believe the U.S. suffers from "accelerated warming" and increasing severe weather - neither are true
First, as the adjacent chart reveals, U.S. temperatures are not "accelerating." The red curve is the 12-month moving average (since 1895), which clearly shows no acceleration, and shows zero relationship to the growing levels of atmospheric CO2 levels (black dots).
As can be seen, U.S. monthly temperatures have a wide variation (the blue up/down plot) in any given year, fluctuating between low and high extremes.
Again, no "accelerating" warming trend is evident from the actual temperature empirical evidence. (click on charts to enlarge)
Read here. This second chart plots the total number of severe tornadoes (F2, F3, F4 & F5) in decade groups (the 2000's include 2011). This actual empirical evidence substantiates that severe weather events, as represented by extreme tornadoes, are not increasing in the U.S.
Conclusion: The mainstream press (eg., NYT, WaPo, Time, CBS, NBC, LA Times, etc.) willfully and unequivocally reports misinformation regarding severe weather and global warming. They do so to purposefully mislead the public and policymakers regarding global warming and climate change.
The NOAA / NCDC climate research group published year-end U.S. temperature data confirming that U.S. is still cooling - CO2 has zero global warming impact on U.S.
As the Climategate 2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the chart below depicts. (click on to enlarge)
This "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending December was the 5th coldest December-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, December 2011 was the 22nd warmest since 1895 (December 1998 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.4°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending December 2011 (Januart 1, 2002 thru December, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 7.2°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
Satellite measurements confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
New peer reviewed study by James Hansen of NASA / GISS measures recent ocean heat content and his data indicates insignificant warming - thus, oceans by year 2100 will not warm much
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does the number crunching on the Hansen et al 2011 analysis that earth has a serious energy imbalance, and this "imbalance" is represented by an ocean warming equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy over the period of 2005 - 2010.
Now, +0.54 W/m2 sounds like a very serious energy imbalance indeed until one translates what that means in degrees Celsius of ocean warming, then projecting that "warming" out to year 2100. That is exactly what Willis's number crunching did and he discovered that based on Hansen's "serious" energy imbalance that oceans will warm by a laughable and by a barely measurable amount of:
+0.15C degree by 2100 AD
Above is the formula that Willis used to convert the "serious" imbalance into actual degrees warming
Adjacent, is an Excel representation of calculations done by Willis. (click to enlarge)
You can download this 'C3' Excel file to examine/play with the calcs. (If you find an error in our representation of Willis's work, please email us.)
Since 1998 the IPCC's HadCRUT reports global cooling - neither Nasa's GISS nor HadCRUT report "dangerous," nor "accelerating," nor "runaway," nor "tipping point" nor "irreversible" global warming
Unfortunately, almost every family has to suffer with the typical "useful idiot" family member during the holidays who has relied on MSNBC, ABC (Australia), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC or CNN for their climate information. Soooo...below is a Christmas stocking stuffer to be pulled out at the appropriate time when the family idiot starts spewing the mainstream media left / liberal / progressive / Democrat climate anti-science.
The IPCC's climate reports' gold-standard for global averages is the HadCRUT temperature dataset. Since the end of 1997, the HadCRUT global average shows an actual global cooling trend, not warming (-0.03C degrees/century). And since the end of 2000, this IPCC gold-standard has global cooling trend increasing to a -0.6C degree/century. (click on charts to enlarge)
The blue trend line is the IPCC's best-of-breed temperature dataset. Nasa's GISS dataset is represented by the red trend and NOAA's NCDC dataset by the green trend.
From the above, we can surmise the following:
1. Despite record setting human CO2 emissions over the past decade, they have not caused "dangerous," "accelerating," "runaway," "tipping point" or "irreversible" global warming
2. Per the IPCC gold-standard, a slight global cooling trend has developed since the end of 1997, and is more prominent since the end of 2000
3. Despite two large El Nino (extreme warming) events since 1997, the global temperatures per the IPCC gold-standard have trended down (through November 2011)
4. None of the IPCC's climate models predicted deceleration of global warming, let alone the actual global cooling
5. Whether it's the HadCRUT or GISS or NCDC temperature trends shown above, "accelerating" global warming is not reality - the opposite is reality
6. A worst case warming scenario based on recent trends (GISS or NCDC, not HadCRUT) might range from a +0.3C to +0.9C warming by year 2100 (trends are not predictions)
7. The climate sensitivity to CO2 atmospheric levels has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC
8. The hysterically claimed climate temperature "tipping point" is just that - hysteria
9. Natural climate and/or cyclical phenomenon has likely had a much greater influence on global temperatures than the immense human CO2 emissions
10. There is no "consensus" among HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC regarding global temperatures
With our listing of both the GISS and NCDC trends above (in addition to HadCRUT), one may wonder why they are not considered the IPCC's gold-standard. Well, regarding Nasa's GISS, a scientist from GISS has stated the following to an USA Today journalist:
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [HadCRUT] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
So, even the GISS folks hardly view their global temperature dataset as being the gold-standard, why should the IPCC?
Regarding the NOAA/NCDC temperature series, a recent analysis of their dataset revisions show a continuous monthly adjustment effort of historical temperatures that signify more a political agenda versus an impartial science objective. Amazingly, in the month of November 2011 alone, NCDC has published at least 4 different versions of their temperature dataset.
More importantly, the current NOAA chief has turned the science agency into a political and global warming hothouse, where facts and evidence are fabricated or subject to ludicrous revisionism for green political purposes. NOAA has become a science joke and the IPCC can ill afford hitching their wagon to another Green Mafia controlled outfit. Thus, no "gold-standard" for the NCDC temperature dataset.
That leaves the HadCRUT dataset as the gold-standard, which, by the way, finds the globe cooling, not warming - hmmm...did we say that already?
Ben Santer & James Hansen have long been declaring that global warming was accelerating from human CO2 - instead, the real facts reveals their incompetence
Santer and Hansen are two climate modelers that have been spectacularly wrong for so long that it's even painful for skeptics to witness. These two have been cluck-clucking forever about how CO2 levels were causing accelerating and irreversible global warming, with some climate "disruption" thrown in to scare the politicians and policymakers.
However, as the actual empirical evidence through November 2011 reveals, it is highly unlikely that either of these "scientists" could find his own ass with his hands. Even using Santer's own preferred 17-year analysis span (chart on left), it is clear that global warming is insignificant and likely moving towards a cooling phase.
The chart on right shows the climate model abomination that NASA and Hansen base their predictions on. The level of climate science incompetence is mind-boggling. (click on images to enlarge)
The only things Santer and Hansen have managed to succeed at is enrichingthemselves, at the expense of science and the taxpayers.
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
IPCC science on Antarctica can't withstand scrutiny of experts and technology - Antarctica's polar ice caps are not melting and can't
Recently, we wrote of the bogus science by Josefino Comiso, an IPCC lead author, that attempted to fabricate warming across the Antarctica continent. Either due to extremely sloppy science, or massive stupidity or science corruption, Comiso and his cohorts "found" Antarctica warming and that its polar ice caps were at risk to melting.
Fortunately for the world, the study by the IPCC's Comiso was thoroughly trashed by experts within the peer-reviewed community. That study has now joined Al Gore's discredited climate science in the ash heap of history.
With that said, what is the actual temperature situation across the Antarctica continent? Well, the above map provides some insight to actual temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
The Antarctica area between the two green circles represents the polar area measured by the state-of-the-art NASA satellite. Since 1978, that entire area has been slightly cooling, not warming, as shown in this previous chart. (The satellite is unable to take measurements for the area within the inner green circle - the doughnut hole area.)
There indeed has been some slight warming in the area of the Antarctica Peninsula but the huge mass of ice sheets actually reside in East and West Antarctica, which measurements show to be cooling.
As can be seen, the temperatures (listed by each red circle) during both the warmest and coldest months (January and July) are well below freezing temperatures. The major ice sheets exist in an interior environment where melting can't occur presently; and, even a future warming of 10 degrees won't cause any melting.
Simply stated, West and East Antarctica are just too freaking cold for any melting to happen, with the exception of coastal areas that already are affected by moderate maritime temperatures.
Despite this actual empirical evidence, the fraud-centric IPCC and its associated scientists still make claims that Antarctica is warming and its gigantic ice caps will soon melt, thus flooding the world. These are flat-out false claims designed to only promote hysteria.
Note: The red circles on the map represent either manned research stations or automatic weather stations. The three temperatures listed for each circle include the average January, the average July and the average annual temperature. For links to average temperature data for each site, go to: Download Antarctica Stations Temps
Predicted warming of continental U.S. by climate "experts" is proven to be robustly wrong
As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
The United Nations bureaucrats & its Climagegate scientists continue pushing the big lies of man-made global warming and climate change
It has been well documented, and agreed to by the vast majority of climate scientists, that global warming has subsided since 1996. This has occurred despite the large increase in CO2 levels; and, of course, despite the prognostications of the UN's Climategate-savant "scientists" who apparently spend most of their research time and monies plotting against other scientists than doing actual science.
With the recent publication of October 2011 HadCRUT global temperatures (the IPCC's gold-standard), it is again confirmed by the empirical evidence that global warming is not driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, which means that the feared climate change is not being driven by man-made CO2 emissions either.
Climate Models Vs. Reality
15 Years - October 2011
17 Years - October 2011
As the above charts reveal, the United Nation's Durban climate conference claims that human CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented, unequivocal and accelerating warming (ie. climate change) are nothing more than fabricated, robust lies. The left most chart plots actual global temperatures (HadCRUT and GISS) versus the predicted outcomes of one of the preeminent climate models. (click on each image to enlarge)
The middle chart plots global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels over the most recent 15 years ending October 2011. The chart on the right is same data plotted but for the 17-year span ending October 2011 (some Climategate scientists insist an extra 2 years makes all the difference when speaking of global warming). The polynomial fitted curves on these two charts indicate that global warming is becoming cooling, and at most, global warming is projected to be less than 1 degree by 2100.
And, as these charts reveal, clearly the IPCC's favored climate models are significantly wrong by orders of magnitude that smack of total incompetence. The UN's anti-scientific claims of global warming, repeated by political hacks like of Al Gore, Obama and Jon Huntsman, are meritless lies designed to push the agenda of global governance favored by the elites, the wealthy and the corporate special interests.
The lies that perpetuate the global warming and climate change hysteria exhibited by Durban conferees are both insidous and never-ending (note the most recent release of Climategate emails). These lies emanate from the bowels of the UN's IPCC and its senior climate "scientists" with no shame or remorse.
"OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, I’ve made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more. I just accepted that you can’t be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. It’s heady, treacherous stuff...I have been a victim of that same self-delusion myself. I understand the sweet seduction that arises from the conviction that your mission is of vital, crucial importance to the whole planet."
NOAA & NCDC Publish Data That Has Global Warming Trend Reaching An Increase of Only +0.95 Degree By 2100
Read here. A couple of month's ago we provided several charts using the new Ben Santer 17-year rule of global warming. Those charts clearly indicated that Ben's hysterical, runaway global warming fears (and the IPCC's) were not related to any empirical climate reality.
In a new press release, Ben Santer (of Climategate-violence fame) again pleads with everyone that 17 years is really the true time span to measure the global warming trend.
Unfortunately for "Gentle" Ben, as this latest adjacent 17-year chart of NOAA/NCDC global temperatures reveals [Excel produced], global warming remains insignificant over the past 17 years, ending as of October 2011; and global temperatures continue a trend towards cooling, while CO2 levels keep growing at a robust pace.
The linear trend of the data implies a barely noticeable warming increase of +0.95C degree by year 2100.
This up-to-date 17-year empirical evidence is irrefutable and confirms the catastrophic global warming skeptics position.
Soooo....why does Ben Santer keep pushing the "CO2-causes-runaway-global-warming" schtick that is without any empirical merit?
Hmmm....would assurring that the free taxpayer, global warming research monies keep on flowing be the likely cause?
Read here. It is well documented that the IPCC's climate "experts" (software programmers) inserted a very high (unproven) CO2 climate sensitivity into the computer climate models. For PR propaganda purposes, the IPCC's climate simulations then foretold a future climate of potentially high temperatures due to the mysterious "tipping point."
As this typical climate model prediction chart reveals though, there is an obvious real-time problem with the IPCC programmers' assumption that the climate is highly sensitive to high levels of atmospheric CO2.
New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of "accelerating" global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong. The research confirms previousstudiesthat the projected future tipping point climate conditions were falsehoods. The actual science again proves global warming skeptics to be correct and, more robustly, that anti-science global warming alarmists, such as Chris Mooney, to be...well...er...pathological liars, exaggerators hysteria-loving alarmists who ignore climate reality.
Much to the major chagrin of climate alarmists everywhere, the Schmittner et al. team conclude that an approximate global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees is a much more likely outcome than the over-inflated 5.0 degrees publicized by the IPCC. This new finding makes the upcoming IPCC's the-world-is-melting convention in Durban, South Africa the penultimate farce.
"There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C....In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”...results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions..." [Schmittner, A., et al., 2011: Science]
Temperature data source here. Carbon chart source here. (click on images to enlarge)
Climate reality keeps defying (mocking?) the IPCC's Climategate scientists. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts.
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of the world's ten worst accelerating CO2 emitters (below the red line) over the last two years. The countries increasing their CO2 emissions the most are: South Africa (home of Durban), Egypt, Brazil, Vietnam, Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India and China.
The NOAA/NCDC chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting November 1, 1996 and ending October 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending October was the 5th coldest October-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, October 2011 was the 33rd warmest since 1895 (October 1963 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.7°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending October 2011 (November 1, 2001 thru October, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 10.6°Fper century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: These linear temperature trends, as shown in the NOAA chart, are not predictions.
The above temperature reconstructions of satellite measurements are as of the end of October 2011. The white areas of each (land, sea and air) represent zero to insignificant temperature cooling/warming; yellow-orange-red colors represent warming; and the blueish areas represent cooling. (click on images to enlarge)
Clearly, what the world's best scientific-based technology tells us is that global warming is not "unequivocal" as most IPCC Climategate scientists robustly claim. In fact, as has been well documented by numerous studies, including BEST, significant warming has been basically absent for some 15 years, which has caused great befuddlement for the IPCC's climate "scientists."
At any point in time, at anyplace on the globe, there could be significant warming, while significant cooling is simultaneously happening at another locale, and both can be associated with vast regional areas of insignificant temperature change. When speaking of "unequivocal" global warming, there is no such thing.
One would think this needless to say, but it seems necessary: the IPCC's unequivocal climate liars would do all of science, the world, and the policymakers a huge service if the lies of "unequivocal," "accelerating," and "unprecedented" global warming were eliminated from the public discourse. These are propaganda terms that the objective empirical evidence robustly refutes.
If that were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to accurately label scientists as "unequivocal" liars.
Last week the BEST research team released their findings in regards to land surface temperatures. The BEST data matched up very closely with the IPCC's gold standard, the HadCRUT land temps sub-dataset. In summary, the Berkeley study had a few key points, including:
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon
Since the BEST land surface results were so similar to the Hadley and CRU efforts, it is highly probable that the future BEST research will closely mimic the HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset as shown above in the chart on the left.
The latest HadCRUT dataset report (released today, 10/28/2011) through September 2011 reveals a very insignificant warming over the last 15 years, with zero correlation to increasing CO2 levels. The global HadCRUT linear trend if projected out means a total global temperature increase of +0.3 degrees by year 2100.
The chart on the right tracks the HadCRUT and GISS global temperature anomalies versus the NASA climate model prediction of global temperatures due to CO2 emissions. It is obvious, that the climate models are stupendously wrong in their estimate of the temperature impact of human CO2 emissions - if the models were correct, the HadCRUT and GISS temperature anomalies would resemble Hansen's 'green' curve. (Note: Climate predictions from the IPCC, its models and its experts are consistently wrong.)
Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, one can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions.
Climate reality keeps defying (mocking?) the IPCC's Climategate scientists. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting October 1, 1997 and ending September 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending September was the 7th coldest September-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, September 2011 was the 21st warmest since 1895 (September 1998 was the warmest.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.2°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending September 2011 (October 1, 2001 thru September 30, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 9.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records. These
Let's say you're a global warming alarmist. You are convinced that increasing CO2 levels has resulted in accelerating temperature change, producing the infamous "runaway," and the out-of-control "tipping point" of global warming.
Helloooo.....you're wrong, big time. (click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset reveals, per the adjacent chart, that modern 10-year (120-month) temperature changes are not accelerating higher, nor are they absolutely higher. For example, AGW alarmism predicts that the January 2011 temperature anomaly would be exceptionally higher than the 2001 January temperature anomaly. In fact, it was lower. How can that be?
Clearly, as the above graph depicts, increasing CO2 levels do not necessarily cause accelerating temperature increases as the AGW theory predicts. Why?
Okay.....time to be blatantly objective: The CO2-warming prediction theory is the direct result of the UN's IPCC political committee, which conducts zero climate science research on its own - instead, it only seeks opinions that supports its own theory. A UN theory that no known empirical data supports, literally.
As a result, the IPCC would never, ever share the above HadCRUT temperature change graph with the public. Think about it. Honestly, why would they ever reveal real-world facts that contradict their own specifically chosen theory?
In a previous post, we listed severe weather events from the decades of 1950, 60 and 70. Clearly, recent years (as focused on by Gore et al) are not the only ones to experience horrendous weather as a result of "climate change."
Al Gore also contends that recent warming (supposedly due to human CO2 emissions) is a sure symptom of "climate change," and, btw, the world can expect anywhere from a 5 to 10 C degree global temperature increase by 2100, based on the current trend. Really? Is that his own "reality"?
Well...the adjacent chart of projected temperature change by year 2100, based on the July 2011 10-year linear trend, reveals a century-ending temperature change that only amounts to a -0.7 C (yes, that's a minus).
Obviously, "reality" and Gore's brain are not a good scientific match.
What's even more interesting from this chart is the extreme variability that exists within the climate system, when viewing projected year 2100 temperature change at different points in time. For example, in 1942, the 10-year linear trend indicated that by year 2100 global temperatures would increase by some 6 degrees. And a few short years later, the 10-year linear trend in 1951 suggested a large decrease in global temperatures of 6.7 degrees by 2100.
The graph's green curve is a simple 20-year average of the rolling 10-year linear trends. Per the recent temperature data, the green curve reveals our current "climate change" is not extreme nor extraordinary.
So...what can we reasonably speculate/conclude from the above chart?
Linear trends are not very good predictions
Projected high temperature change by year 2100, per Gore and others, is not believable
Global temperatures are not experiencing "accelerating" warming
Global warming is not "unequivocal"
Global warming is not in a "runaway" condition
Global climate, as represented by temperatures, has always shown extreme variability
19th & 20th century extrmeme climate change was not driven by human CO2 emissions (climate change prior to huge modern CO2 emissions)
More recent climate change variation may actually have been moderated by modern human CO2 emissions
This stark, indisputable empirical evidence is completely inconsistent with AGW theory and associated climate models
Any U.S. presidential nominee candidate who claims "global warming" from human CO2 emissions should be an important priority is a non-scientific imbecile
Actually, more concern by all should be directed towards the potential of extreme global cooling, based on the most current 10-year trend
Previously, we reviewed global warming and CO2 data using the Santer et al. recommended 17-year span to determine the impact on temperatures from human emissions. The real world evidence clearly shows that whatever influence CO2 has on global temperatures it appears to be quite small.
Then there is this graph revealing that 2011 satellite daily temperature measurements are below those recorded in 2010, every single day. The combination of these facts support the interpretation that large human CO2 emissions are not causing significant or accelerating warming.
Now, despite all this evidence, Jon Huntsman, a hopeful GOP candidate for president, is going around spouting off about his global warming and climate change worries. Currently the country has vast economic, financial and growth issues yet Huntsman keeps harping on the non-existent global warming. It's like the Hollywood liberal/left that's still harping on about vaccines causing autism when the empirical evidence completely trashes that bogus theory.
It's as if he actually believes the "97%" bogus claim of scientists addicted to taxpayer research monies, instead of believing the real empirical evidence.
And the evidence just keeps mounting. From the billions of dollars we have spent on satellites come these images of the "global" warming anomalies. Whether it is land, sea or air, the actual warming is of a regional/local nature - it is not "global" and the "warming" doesn't dominate. (click on images to enlarge)
Might be time for serious GOP candidates to start pressing Huntsman on the climate facts. If he's challenged about the actual empirical evidence, which he then denys to be true, Americans will view him as just another political hack attempting to mislead the public for his own political gain.
Hell, even Obama has smartened up about the bogus climate hysteria and is starting to avoid it like the plague. Huntsman is so stupid and desperate for liberal love he often gets suckered by the MSM, thus revealing himself to be both left-of-center politically correct and extremely vulnerable with his 'green' non-scientific AGW views.
Ben 'call-me-violent' Santer is a Climategate-style scientist whose ethical compass normally does not read true very well. Despite these less than desired personal characteristics as a scientist, Ben pursues climate science with great vigor, producing results that are very interesting, to say the least. His most recent research is a perfect example.
Benjie et al. has determined, through an unprecedented and a most robust, vigorous research effort, that one only needs 17 years to determine the human-CO2 impact on global temperatures.
Using this new Santer 17-year rule, the below atmospheric temperatures, per the NASA satellite, have increased modestly, suggesting a non-catastrophic increase of only 1.27 degrees by January 1, 2100.
And, using this new 17-year rule, the actual ocean temperatures have barely increased in the recent past. If this linear ocean temperature trend continued, a 0.74 degrees of less than robust warming can be expected by January 1, 2100.
And, using this new 17-year rule, the global temperatures have slightly increased since July 2004. Expanding on this global data, the underlying linear trend points to an insignificant, minor 0.85 degree increase in global temperatures by January 1, 2100 - certainly not the runaway, catastrophic global warming as predicted by the IPCC, and the likes of Santer.
These 3 charts provide some very valuable insights: one, recent past warming is realistically a non-issue; two, the future warming, based on known trends, is also likely to be a non-issue; and, three, increasing CO2 levels have little impact on global temperatures.
Regarding the last point, the 17-year r^2 statistical measurement for each of the above graphs indicates the extreme lameness of the CO2 and warming relationship. Using an Excel formula, the r^2 for CO2 and satellite temperatures is just 0.136; for CO2 and ocean temperatures it is 0.135; and, for global CO2 and global temperatures it is only 0.133.
These ludicrously low r^2 statistical measurements reveal an indisputable truth: CO2 levels probably have only little influence on global temperatures.
And, to add even more misery to global warming alarmists, such as Santer et al., the light blue Excel fitted (polynomial) curve for each chart suggests that temperature increases are definitely decelerating over the most recent 17-year span, in spite of the growing CO2 levels. In terms of visual interpretation, each chart does appear to point to a possible cooling phase in the near future.
When looking at the temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting September 1, 1997 and ending August 31, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending Augut was the 6th coldest August-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, August 2011 was the 2nd warmest since 1895 (August 1983 was the warmest.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.2°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending August 2011 (September 1, 2001 thru August 31, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 10.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Read here. All of the major climate models predicted that the billions of tons of CO2 emitted by humans over the last 60 years would cause the oceans to warm in an "accelerating" manner. It's not happening, though.
A critical measurement of ocean climate is its heat content. The newest data from NOAA reveals ocean heat content has flat-lined over recent years, contrary to "expert" climate model predictions. (click on images from Bob Tisdale to enlarge)
"And as many are aware, Climate Model Projections of Ocean Heat Content anomalies did not anticipate this flattening. Figure 2 compares the ARGO-era (2003 to present) NODC Global Ocean Heat Content anomalies to the GISS Model-E Projection of 0.7*10^22 Joules per year. The linear trend of the observations is approximately 7% of the trend projected by the model mean of the GISS Model-E."
Read here. Santer et al. 2011 research supposedly determines that at least 17 years of data is required to "measure" humans' impact on the climate. Not 15 years, not 16, not 18, not 19, not 20, but most assuredly, their cherry-picked 17-year span is the new gold-standard.
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Soooo, what does 17 years of HadCRUT global temperatures and CO2 levels look like versus the previous 'C3' 15-year data plot? Good question!
Using 17 years (204 months) worth of data through the end of July 2011, the plot on the left reveals that global warming since August 1994 is rather modest and non-existent since 1998.
The linear trend from this 17-year span indicates that global temperatures will be only 0.85°C higher by January 1, 2100. The light blue fitted curve suggests that global temperatures are actually moving towards a cooling period, not a warming. The grey fitted curve for CO2 keeps to a linear path ("business as usual") it has long had.
Let's identify what human CO2 impacts (past, present and future) have had on the climate per this 17-year period:
This 17-year gold-standard, blessed by the holier than thou team of Santer et cohorts, basically confirms that human CO2 emissions have had little, if any, impact on global temperatures.
This 17-year span confirms that future global warming will at most be modest.
This 17-year data confirms what skeptics have been saying for the last 17 years: runaway positive feedback is a fantasy and future global warming is unlikely to be catastrophic.
Since this outcome is probably not what Santer et al. expected from looking at the most recent 17-year span, maybe they ought to retract their study for a major revision. It would seem the 17-year span might need to be changed - damn that pesky empirical evidence!
And btw, 'Dr. B.S. Violence' should apologize to everyone for wasting taxpayer money on what 69% of Americans already know.
Note1 to readers: Go here for 17-year charts for ocean and atmosphere temps.
Note2 to readers: The linear trend that produces 0.85°C by 2100 is not a prediction. Actual global temperatures may be higher or lower. No one knows for sure. Most importantly, as this 17-year evidence indicates, current climate models are completely clueless as to future temperatures.
Read here and here. There is ampleempirical evidence that the feared CO2-caused global warming predicted by the IPCC and climate "experts" has been dramatically fading over the last 15 years. And there is plenty of ongoing anecdotal evidence of global cooling in the past few years.
Add Wellington, New Zealand and Mt. Ranier, Washington to the anecdotal evidence list. And don't forget about Ireland's and Germany's cold summer.
Read here. As the dotted trend line indicates on this German temperature chart, "global warming" is not so happening in Germany. The same is likely true for a number of nearby central European states.
And, to add to the AGW-alarmist scientists misery, and as most 'C3' readers are aware, "global warming" in the U.S. has actually been global cooling over the last 15 years, according to NOAA temperature datasets.
The fact that majors areas of the globe are cooling explains why warming has been trivial over the last 15 years, across the world. The lack of massive warming is a significant invalidation of the AGW hypothesis and runs counter to every major climate model based on the assumption that the climate in incredibly sensitive to human CO2 emissions.
Despite the hundreds of billions spent on these models and associated taxpayer expenditures on AGW research, the evidence is now conclusive that they are unable to predict accurately.
The HadCRUT monthly anomalies were just updated through June 2011. Below are two relevant charts: one indicating the failure of NASA's climate model predictions; and, the other chart revealing the lack of global warming.
If global warming is actually happening, how is it that the Southern Hemisphere (S-H) winters are not becoming more mild as expected? (click on image to enlarge)
In reality, the S-H has not had any significant warming in over 15 years, and appears to be entering a cooling phase, which may explain the winter weather becoming worse.
The adjacent chart reveals a flat linear trend (green line) for S-H temperatures that goes all the way back to March of 1996. That's over 15 years (through May 2011) that the data clearly show no significant and no material warming for 50% of the world.
The aqua fitted curve indicates the recent cooling trend being experienced.
In contrast to the real-world, hard data of climate science (i.e. empirical evidence) the alarmist claims of "unprecedented," "unequivocal" and "accelerating" global warming are outright false, and should be immediately dismissed as blatant propaganda. Although the die-hard cultists will never stop denying the lack of global warming, the scientific proponents of AGW are now finally admitting that global warming is not global, nor is it warming.
Read here. Mass confusion and conflicted "consensus science" reigns supreme in the realm of AGW pseudo-science and the Gorian world-will-end style of hysteria. And it's all because the prophesied global warming has disappeared since 1998, throwing the ranks of the AGW-cult into fits of desperation.
Recently, we wrote about a peer-reviewed study (by scientists whom advocate human-caused global warming) that attempted to explain why global warming disappeared after 1998. In summary, their analysis blamed China's coal burning for the world's apparent cooling, which really does not hold up to close scrutiny.
Soon after, another group of global warming alarmist scientists released an analysis contending that China was not at fault for global cooling, but small, minor volcano eruptions were. This study, besides also confirming the global cooling that skeptics had identified a long time ago, seems to be another act of desperation by alarmists to explain away the inconvenient loss of global warming.
A major problem for these two studies, per the adjacent chart, is the fact that the Northern and Southern hemisphere's temperatures have behaved in opposing directions. One half of the world chooses slight warming since 1998, the other half votes for global cooling, so it would appear.
This inconvenient, empirical evidence readily invalidates the "global" in the global warming theory. It also invalidates both the China-is-causing-cooling and the minor-volcanoes-are causing-cooling aerosols speculation as causes for the lack of "global" warming since 1998.
The "world-ending" anthropogenic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is supposed to be "global" except apparently it isn't; and often, it's not warming at all.
per the NOAA/NCDC data, the continental U.S. has actually been cooling over the last 15-years;
climate change alarmists are now finally admitting in the science literature that the world has not warmed since 1998;
the latest NASA satellite technology shows no ocean warming since 2002;
ocean heat content has basically been flat since 2003;
and finally, all measurements taken to identify the atmospheric "hot" spot required by the AGW hypothesis have not found it.
That's pretty damning evidence - not a single key climate measurement reveals the holy grail trifecta of "unprecedented," "unequivocal" and "accelerating," global warming. But wait....it gets even worse.
Adding to the alarmists' misery of a failed hypothesis is a critical area of the globe that is so important it's the basis of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) proxy - the area of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The chart on the left, the NINO3.4 anomalies since 1900 show no warming; the chart on the right, the NINO3.4 anomalies from 1981 through June 2011, show no warming.
Essentially, a major proxy for global ocean temperatures has a flat trend for the past century plus.
To expand on the area that the NINO3.4 covers, there is a large Pacific ocean expanse (33% of world's ocean surface) that engulfs the NINO3.4 and closely mimics its temperature changes. This ocean area is known as the East Pacific. It stretches from pole to pole and is depicted on the map below (left).
As the chart on the right reveals, since 1981 this vast ocean region has not warmed, despite the massive amounts of human CO2 greenhouse gases and the "consensus" AGW hypothesis.
Soooo, how can a global warming hypothesis that has conspicuously failed every global warming empirical measure and validation test still be considered a viable scientific hypothesis? How can such abject, empirical failure by a hypothesis still allow it to resonate with the liberal/left/progressive elites? Well, just like their love affair with eugenics, awful and idiotic science can find a permanent home in the belly of the left because of the dangerous power and control it artificially bestows to the ruling classes, relative to the average citizen.
Read here, here, here, here and here. A clown-like PNAS peer-reviewed study by a group of green professors, none of whom are climate or atmospheric scientists (Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock) purports to explain how the IPCC's climate scientists and their climate models got it sooo wrong in regards to the well documented lack of global warming since 1998.
Their theory, widely reported by both an uncritical mainstream media and compliant, gullible bloggers & pundits, is that China's growing coal use emitted the needed sulfur emissions to stop global warming during the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's a clownish theory based on, at best, flimsy, pretend climate science and minimal actual empirical evidence.
1. Unlike annual compiled CO2 emissions and CO2 monthly atmospheric levels, recent sulfur emissions and SO2 atmospheric aerosol levels are guesstimates. This study is based on guesstimates, which are based on tenuous assumptions, which are likely not a reflection empirical reality.
2. It is estimated by these authors that coal sulfates increased around 2004, well after the global non-warming phase had already started.
3. Unlike climate-impacting volcano sulfate aerosol ejections that travel multiple kilometers into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), sulfate emissions (aerosol particles) from coal remain in the lower atmosphere and are resident only for a short time as they are quickly washed out of the air by precipitation ("acid rain").
4. Coal sulfate emissions are not well mixed in the atmosphere, which means they are not well distributed around the globe meaning their global impact on temperatures is severely limited.
5. A previous NASA satellite measurement analysis published by atmospheric experts found no increase in global aerosol optical depth over the years 2000 through 2006.
6. Despite China's large increase in coal burning, aggregate global sulfate emissions have dramatically decreased because worldwide coal plants are burning coal with less sulfur and newer smokestack (flue) scrubber technology.
7. The empirically measured impact of coals' SO2 on temperatures is not settled, with science research suggesting that sulfur aerosols in the lower atmosphere are actually a cause of warming, not cooling.
8. Natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations are significantly better explanations of the non-global warming over the 1998-2008 period than the lame, meritless, speculative sulfur emissions hypothesis.
9. In another NASA study, it was found that aerosol particulates in the atmosphere have declined since the 1990's.
(click on any image to enlarge)
Estimated human SO2 emissions, generally declining with estimated slight increase around 2005-2005 (source for left, right):
Aggregate coal SO2 emissions adjusted for use of cleaner coal and use of improved scrubber tecnhology, declining overall, everywhere (source):
Aerosol (including SO2 particulates) optical depth comparisons from satellite measurements for years 2001, 2004, and 2008. Little change over several years of Kaufmann et al. study, and satellite data reveals aerosols to be of a local/regional concern, not a global issue (source):
Study's authors own graphical representation of their estimate of SO2 warming/cooling impact (purple curve) on global temperatures (blue curve). Even their own assessment would indicate little, if any, impact from human sulfur emissions during span of 1998 to 2008 (source).
The above graph has all curves removed except for global temperatures and sulfur forcing. Below, the SOI (index of the Southern Oscillation) curve (green) is added back to the study's original graph.
Focusing on the blue box representing the period analyzed by the study, one quickly sees that both the SOI and global temps are highly variable. Looking closer, there is a relationship evident between the SOI and temperatures - when the SOI heads in one direction, the global temps head in the opposite direction a few months later.
Apparently, the authors of this study chose to ignore Gaia's Southern Oscillation (and/or other major ocean/atmosphere oscillations) despite its obvious influence on cooling global temps from 1998 to 2008. Instead they focus on the purple curve (sulfur emissions forcing) that just as obvious had a fraction of Gaia's impact on temperatures.
As Judith Curry (a renowned climate scientist) states:
"I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance...the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors."
Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998. This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC Climategate scientists claims of "unequivocal," "unprecedented," and "accelerating" global warming they have made over recent years. Global warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material also supports.
In a previous post, we reviewed the last 15 years of HadCRUT temperature records, which show that global warming has become insignificant. In fact, one could accurately state that a global cooling trend is now replacing a global warming trend in an "unequivocal" and "accelerating" manner, using the greens' own favored warming alarmist terms. (click on each image to enlarge)
When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus the May 2011 10-year trend).
As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction. In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by -0.67°C.
This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of "business as usual" increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the "consensus" claims of IPCC "climate scientists" and predictions of the bureaucrats' climate models. (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have failed.)
The lower right chart depicts a similar global cooling trend outcome over the last 15 years. Using the same monthly anomaly data, this chart's per century trends are based on 5-year linear calculation.
Regardless of how the temperature anomaly records are examined, the last 15-year span has seen the global warming trend fade as the world seemingly moves into a global cooling mode (the continental U.S. 15-year record of temperatures confirms this cooling trend). How long this will persist and how deep the cooling trend may become is pure speculation. And indeed, there is no concrete, empirically proven, scientific reason to assume the cooling will continue - the climate is complex and chaotic, which makes accurate predictions impossible.
These are the take home facts:
1. Global warming is neither unequivocal, accelerating, or even unprecedented.
2. Global cooling is becoming a trend but it's not clear whether that trend is accelerating and unequivocal - circumstantial at this point.
3. Rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused the requisite acceleration of global temperature increases.
4. CO2 levels appear to have little impact on global temperatures.
5. Global temperatures are in a deceleration mode, totally contrary to IPCC's climate models.
6. Recent severe weather events (2010 and 2011) are not a result of increasing global temperatures; based on the actual temperature evidence since 2001, recent severe weather would more likely be a result of accelerating cooling.
7. Climate models have been stupendously wrong about global warming and associated climate change, time after time.
Read here and here. Well..okay...the quote in this post's title is what Phil Jones should have really said (he didn't). Instead, he recently proclaimed that global warming finally has become "statistically significant" since 1995.
Jones was speaking of the 15 years starting in 1996 and ending in 2010. Although the warming has become "statistically significant" in his opinion (not others), the actual level of warming is literally immaterial when put into the context of catastrophic warming (from 5 to 10 degrees Celsius by 2100) pushed by government payroll scientists enthralled (enriched?) with alarmism.
To better understand the level of immaterial warming that has happened, look at the chart above (adjacent). The red curve is a plot of monthly HadCRUT anomalies for the 15 years (180 months) ending May 2011. The light blue curve is a 2nd order curve fit of the anomalies. The black dots represent monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and gray curve the 2nd order fitting to those CO2 levels. (charts and stats done in Excel)
First, note how the blue curve turns south, indicating a direction of cooling for the HadCRUT global temps that many scientists believe will continue. The straight linear trend associated with the latest 15 years implies a warming of a tiny +0.53 degrees by January 1, 2100. In contrast, the 15-year period ending May,1996 had a linear trend that translates into an increase of +1.02 degrees by end of century, if that trend still existed - it doesn't. Did we say cooling yet?
Second, does that red curve look in the least like the accelerating, unequivocal and unprecedented global warming being claimed as happening by the UN's IPCC "elite" scientists? Nope, me neither.
Next, note the behavior of Phil Jones' (and the IPCC climate models') favorite climate forcing over the last 15 years. It is more than obvious that CO2 levels continue their long, relentless march upward, as they have done ever since WWII. And obviously, the chart clearly shows the two trends (CO2 and HadCRUT temps) diverging.
Visually, there appears to be no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures depicted in the chart. And in fact, the R2 statistic for the two comes in at an incredibly low +0.04 - in essence, it appears there is no valid relationship between CO2 and global temps. Of course, Phil Jones and the IPCC deny this, but the actual on-the-ground facts are undeniable: human CO2 emissions appear to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, well below the speculative predictions of the IPCC and its climate models.
One final note about global warming and the recent 2011 severe weather incidents. As the HadCRUT chart depicts, global temperatures started a major decline after March 2010. As temperatures categorically crashed, the world suffered from more cold, more snow, more tornadoes, more rain, more flooding and etc. And what do the lamestream media, Hollywood celebrities, left/liberal politicians and alarmist scientists blame? Why, of course, global warming and human CO2 emissions. Go figure.
Sooo, going back to the title of this post, Phil Jones would have been more accurate and truthful if he had said: "Although statistically significant, global warming over the last 15 Years has been rather insignificant, definitely immaterial, likely irrelevant, and basically inconsistent with the climate models." That sounds like it emanated from an honest, objective scientist, no?
BTW, below are charts for other major temperature datasets for the last 15 years ending May 2011. Regardless of the dataset, global temperatures are in a slight cooling phase presently and they could continue to go down, and then again, they may not. That's what natural climate change is about. (click on all images to enlarge)
The UN's political and propaganda climate agency, commonly known as the IPCC, has made an ongoing, multi-decadal effort to convince both policymakers and the public that global warming was relentless, unprecedented and accelerating. The well publicized IPCC climate predictions even went as far as to claim winters would be wamer with an associated disappearance of snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
Unfortunately for the IPCC though, and its climate model predictions, and its "consensus" science, natural climate forces made a mockery of the exhibited arrogance and hubris embodied within the United Nations climate propaganda agency.
As fate would have it, large expanses of global geography have experienced colder and snowier conditions during many of the last ten years, totally contradicting the "settled" science of politicians and bureaucrats. Case in point is the vast area of the U.S. and its various regional areas. (click on image to enlarge)
The U.S. has been cooling overall for the past 15 years, and as the chart above depicts, its winters, as reported by the NOAA climate services, have contributed to that trend. This happened despite the IPCC claim that increased CO2 emissions results in global warming, not hemispheric cooling. And let there be no doubt, annual CO2 emissions continue to be large and growing.
Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the 2007 IPCC "consensus" climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)
The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.
As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.
As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.