Radical-green, progressive Democrats are now resorting to intimidation and inquisition tactics to force others into conformity with their anti-science regarding climate change. Due to their failing miserably in winning the actual science debate, they turn to coercion on those whom disagree.
Unfortunately, they conveniently ignore (or are unaware) the empirical evidence that climate change is a constant, which has produced ancient and geological era extremes in weather and temperatures - extremes that science has confirmed with a cornucopia of peer-reviewed research.
These extremes even took place eons 'Before Exxon' (BE), the fossil fuel giant that Democrats routinely blame for modern climate change and global warming.
Above is a paleo-climate reconstruction from this study for northern Greenland. It clearly depicts the swings in 'BE' climate change from the warming of the MCA (medieval climate anomaly) to the cooling of the LIA (little ice age) and the extreme warming during the early 20th century (ETCW) from the 1920s to 1940s.
The study's author's make the following comments regarding the δ18O proxy:
"The δ18O values of the 20th century are comparable to the medieval period but are lower than that about AD 1420. …. The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland."
Each of these extremes shown are a result of natural internal/external forcings prior to the gigantic consumer/industrial influx of human CO2 emissions starting post-1950.
Per the abundance of climate empirical research, blaming Exxon and other fossil fuel entities for global warming is simply anti-scientific. Climate change, including that of the late 20th century, does not require a change in CO2 - a trace atmospheric gas -to happen.
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.
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 continuing scientific climate research confirms what 97% of studies have previously determined: the northern latitudes, including the Arctic and Greenland, were considerably warmer in the past when CO2 levels were substantially below those of the 21st century.
The science facts are indisputable, natural forces and cycles frequently pushed the global climate into extremes of cooling and warming.
".....determined that (1) "maximum concentrations of chironomids, maximum occurrence of ephippia of the water flea Daphnia pulex, highest organic matter contents and lowest minerogenic input from c. 7700 to 4400 cal. a BP probably reflect the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM)," that (2) "the highest temperatures during the HTM are indicated around 7000 cal. a BP, when Salix arctica, which is considered a warmth-loving plant, had a maximum," that (3) "comparisons with Holocene records from East and North Greenland show similar immigration histories and similar trends, with the Little Ice Age as the coldest period during the Holocene, culminating about 150 years ago," and that (4) "subsequent warming does not indicate environmental conditions comparable to the HTM yet at this stage."
As the vast majority of climate peer-reviewed studies confirm, there were multiple periods in the geological and ancient past that exhibited, not only extreme climate change, but also hotter temperatures prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer greenhouse gases.
This new study regarding the Arabian Sea temperatures during winter seasons adds to the mountain of evidence that current climate change is of a less extreme variety, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions.
And as this other study indicates, that extra CO2 has provided substantial benefits to the biosphere.
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).
As the preponderance of scientific studies and reports have proven, our current modern warming is not unprecedented. Significant warming has taken place quite often in the past, as well as climatic cooling.
"The 600-year reconstructed record -- dating back to AD 1392. As indicated, the record shows pronounced periods of subdecadal to multidecadal variability. Specifically, Elbert et al. note the presence of cold phases "during parts of the Little Ice Age (16th and 18th centuries) and in the beginning of the 20th century." In contrast, they state that warm phases persisted "in the 15th century, around AD 1600 and in the 19th century," the latter of which they characterized as the "most prominent" of the entire record."
Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC "experts" as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.
The graph's lack of both science creditability and statistical robustness eventually caused the UN's IPCC to throw in the towel and exclude it from future climate reports.
Climate research in recent years has confirmed that the hockey stick deserved the ash heap of bad paleo-science it now resides in.
This has again been proven in the latest study, which shows the non-existence of the 'hockey stick' and the rather similar (yet less) modern warming versus that of the Medieval Period. The study's summer temperature reconstruction is adjacent.
Article: This new study for the northern China Sea is just another recent example of empirical evidence supporting past research regarding the global warming experienced during both the Roman and Medieval periods.
And don't forget, that for a brief period, the IPCC's "consensus experts" attempted to claim that modern global warming was unprecedented. But that attempt failed miserably when it became obvious a mountain of peer-reviewed studies easily refuted the "unprecedented" claim.
Article: The myth that modern global warming is "unprecedented" continues despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that debunks the myth. This study from China provides additional proof that natural climate change is a powerful driving force that produces warning phases without human intervention.
Much to the chagrin of the West's leading anti-science global warming alarmists, China's scientists are not cooperating ... their latest research reveals 'unprecedented' warming actually took place well before modern high CO2 levels and industrialization ... the empirical evidence for natural climate change continues to be indisputable and growing.....
(click on for larger view)
This peer-reviewed study confirms that extreme warming took place in China, at the approximate times that Europe was experiencing the warming of the Medieval and Minoan periods.
Unprecedented global warming over a vast swath of the world took place in antiquity.
It is accurate to conclude that natural climate change is a powerful force in terms of promoting significant temperature change regimes - simply, human CO2 emissions are not required to do so.
"Using multi-proxy records -- including data on pollen, charcoal, phytoliths, total nitrogen, total organic carbon and loss-on-ignition from a 268-cm-long sediment core...The six scientists report that one of what they call the "significant climate events during this period" was the Medieval Warm Period, which held sway from approximately AD 700-1200, and which they say "was also revealed at some other sites in Xinjiang,...which was about 1.3°C higher than what had been the case at any other time over the past 3,000 years"
The global "warming" charade is not about saving humanity, nor about saving polar bears...it's all about a non-environmental agenda that is being pursued by the establishment elites and powerful...and they aren't bashful about admitting it...thus, government agencies, such as NOAA, will fabricate anything and everything in support of the agenda.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The global warming political agenda requires proof that temperatures are getting hotter.
If "hotter," then the public will of course need the government to step in and save them from dangerous hot temperatures.
But what happens when the modern maximum temperatures do not fit the agenda by not being as hot as those experienced in the distant past, earlier in the 20th century?
Well, in the case of NOAA, they just fabricate the "proof."
By simply lowering adjusting past annual maximum U.S. temperatures down until they are below the modern era temps; plus, to provide a little oomph, they raise the modern maximums a bit.
As this chart reveals, NOAA massively lowered the past temperatures prior to the 1990's. The broad black curve is the 5-year mean of the maximum U.S monthly temperatures originally measured and recorded.
And the broad blue curve? That's the 5-year mean of maximum temperatures after NOAA finished with their fabrications adjustments.
Figuratively, with a few strokes of the keyboard, NOAA manipulated the long-standing historical climate records in order to present needed "evidence" that fits with the political agenda.
Unfortunately for the reputation and credibility of science, this style of empirical evidence falsification is widespread, with government climate "scientists" leading the way it would appear.
Note: Original source of chart; the animated gif image was separated into its two frames using '7GIF.' The colors of the the two frames were then changed to be different. Then one graph was superimposed on another.
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.
Thank you, Obama!....US DOE researchers connect-the-dots...confirm for the public, once and for all, that natural climate change was bigger!, badder!, warmer! and cooler! than the meek modern era climate...science has spoken!!...the science is settled!!...the debate is over!!...it's a consensus!!...indeed, modern warming is very natural-like, just not as robust versus the past.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This chart was recently produced by government scientists, as noted here and here.
This single chart compilation by govt researchers confirms what multiple studies have shown over and over again...natural climate change rules, regardless of CO2 greenhouse emissions.
Several obvious points from this research pictorial.
A. Past natural climate change has produced extreme volatility and variation.
B. Reconstructed temperature proxies reveal multiple climatic periods of acceleration and levels of cooling/warming that far exceed what the modern era has experienced.
C. Modern global warming is not extreme nor unique, even compared to the relatively recent period of the Minoan/Bronze age civilizations.
D. Current temperatures would not have to drop by that much for Earth to enter an ice age glaciation period.
E. Earth has been in an overall cooling mode for the last 10 million years.
These 5 scientific factual points are indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable and unequivocal. [Editor opinion: Any scientist, politician, bureaucrat or journalist/pundit who states otherwise is a definitive climate change denier - or, maybe 'anti-science' liar would be a more apt label for those denying what climate science has proven to be fact.]
Two more points to be considered.
First, the DOE scientists who produced this chart attached instrument thermometer readings to reconstructed proxy estimates. This is truly an apple-to-orange comparison without any scientific validity. It's a science 'no-no' in lay terms. In addition, modern era proxy reconstructions reveal a temperature decline since 1960 that these DOE scientists conveniently fail to mention identify.
Second, it has been well established by multiple analysts that modern climate records have been heavily manipulated by govt "scientists" to fabricate faux-warming over vast regions of the globe. It is now estimated that large swaths have had their climate records "adjusted" upward by at least 0.4C over the last 20 years. To appreciate the huge extent of the temperature fabrication, visit these search links: here, here, here, here and charts here.
When these two considerable factors are taken into account, the actual modern warming that has occurred is likely better represented by the mauve arrow added to the chart on the right side.
Alas, in the scheme of actual climate empirical evidence, modern warming is not so much as it turns out. It's those stubborn facts, again.
Is it true about the climate warming?...since the incredible revelations of Climategate, official climate science continues to embarrass itself...frankly, government sponsored scientists seem eager to keep the curse alive that is undermining their credibility...one wonders if it due to a strong allergic reaction to truth and objectivity...maybe current global warming science should now be referred to as 'Kardashian-science' in honor of manipulating the truth for a better story...now take the case of the persistent photoshopping manipulating of the historical climate records.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Name a single individual scientist, government official or blue-ribbon commission that publicly announced 10 to 20 years ago that all the historical climate temperature records were wrong, and thus there was a need for all to be altered carte blanche to conform to certain pattern.
That's right, you can't.
Hmmm...maybe because there never was a debate/discussion about a proposed blatant altering of historical evidence.
With absolutely no public concurrence to do so, non-elected climate scientists just decided to make it happen.
It's science on its worst agenda-driven behavior.
Of course, when the empirical truth comes out regarding the overstatement of global warming by govt climate researchers they then wonder why the public has a growing distrust of science and government.
Recently, climate analyst Paul Homewood has had a slew of articles regarding the very questionable alterations of various climate station records. His research has documented multiple instances of "adjustments", from the top of the world to the bottom, with the end result always being that late 20th century global warming appears to be greater than the originally recorded - but only after the adjustments.
An example of his work are the two climate station records in the accompanying graphs. One station is in Iceland and the other in Paraguay. Both examples reveal that historical, originally recorded temperatures of the past were significantly reduced, which obviously makes the recent modern global warming appear more unusual.
This is the "unprecedented" modern warming that advocates relentlessly push. But it is only unprecedented because the past temperatures were so drastically altered - literally, it's fake unprecedented warming relative to the cooling alternations applied primarily to the pre-1970 temperatures.
Multiple articles from the near past have been written about the continuing "global warming" fabrications by climate agencies - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It's not a pretty picture of supposed objective truth-seeking science.
Are all temperature adjustments bad or wrong? Absolutely not, as this and this article point out some merits.
Yet, indications from 3rd party analysis (here and here) indicates that potentially one-half of the hypothetical +0.8°C global warming since 1850 may be a result of the massive temperature adjustments applied to the entire historical record.
'Hypothetical' because the climate agencies cannot say with confidence what actual global temperatures were in the past (or are now):
"It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe."...
Finally, it would be one thing if climate agencies adjusted past temperatures with a one-time correction for any of the poorly reported historical temperatures. It's a whole different ballgame when climate agencies "correct" all past monthly historical temperatures every few months.
For example, did you know that NOAA/NCDC has "corrected" the January 1939 global temperature at least 7 times over the last 24 months? This is the count only when considering the 2nd decimal point changes. For corrections out to the 4th decimal point, it is highly likely January 1939 has been corrected 24 times out of the last 24 months.
And this is true for every single month going back to 1880.
Here's a commonsense suggestion to finally improve the credibility of climate science, and, most importantly, to assure the public's confidence in the global warming reported in the future:
An appointed 3rd party audit should be conducted by a team of non-climate scientists on all historical raw climate station temperatures; one-time corrections would then be applied utilizing a scientifically/statistically agreed upon standard; and, once corrected, past temperatures can never be "corrected" again by climate researchers.
Voila, the ongoing and distracting debate about the accuracy and truthfulness of global land/sea temperature records is smothered, once and for all.
How to pay for such a scientific endeavor? Easy. Take a few billion away from the spectacularly failed climate model efforts, especially since the current models rely on the fabricated temperature records. No wonder they're always so wrong.
Climate science continues to document the powerful, repeating natural patterns that produce the ups/downs of climate change...yet, many political, journalism, celebrity elites, and newly-minted wannabes deny the existence of these past, current and future climate patterns...to the point of grossly misleading the public and constituents in regards to natural climate change, natural global warming, and yes, natural worldwide cooling...so, is it plain anti-science that drives their denial?...an unfathomable ignorance?...or just the intellectually-lame desire to be politically correct?.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Using the UK's MetOffice global HadCRUT4 (HC4) dataset as a proxy for long-term climate change, it allows for a breakdown of when such changes occurred.
For this article's definitional purposes, long-term change is defined at those points where the HC4 30-year global average shifted to a new level (up or down) by 0.1°C, for at least 12-months in a row.
[Editor: Why ±0.1 changes and not ±0.01? Because long-term changes of hundredths of a degree is an absurd and statistically bogus change-assessment technique for 12 months, let alone 360 months.]
The adjacent chart depicts those ±0.1 changes. As can be observed, there have been a total of 10 shifts since the 1850-beginning of this global instrument dataset.
There was a shift down in the global 30-year average starting in July 1909, for a period that extended to October 1928. The next full 0.1°C shift arrived in November 1928 when the 30-year average increased by 0.1°C, attaining its previous level.
That was then followed by 3 more shifts, each of different lengths.
Then the same exact pattern of shifting repeats, with 1 cooling shift followed by 4 warming shifts.
The warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) did not have a major impact on long-term HC4 averages until the early 1900's.
Natural global warming since the LIA-rebound started has not been consistent, nor even predictable.
As represented by the 30-year global average shifts, the first span of global warming (consisting of the first 4 shifts up) was very lengthy, reaching all the way into the 1970's - this long span being primarily well before the gargantuan consumer/industrial CO2 emissions from the late 20th century of the modern era.
The amount of long-term increase for the last 4 shifts equals +0.4°C, the same as the earlier 'up' shifts, but it occurred over a shorter time span.
Does all of the above mean that the future will be an exact repeat of the pattern? Well, the definitive answer to that is 'no'.
There is no denying that, in general, modern climate change closely resembles what has taken place in the past. The similarities are evident, despite short-term climate variations that produce observable differences in duration, levels and intensity.
As the latest peer-reviewed research indicates, modern climate scientists are finally rediscovering (for example and example) the climate truths that their predecessors were aware of: natural earthly/solar/cosmic forces produce repeating (and similar) climate oscillations/cycles, creating dominant influences that dictate overall patterns for long-term climate change.
Yes, the human influence does exist, but it is a distinctly minor player in the long-term scheme of climate patterns.
And because these amazing pattern similarities happen in a chaotic system, they can neither be predicted, nor controlled. Those stubborn facts are continually ignored by advocates of human-caused climate change predictions.
Note: This monthly temperature dataset and Excel used to calculate moving 30-year averages. First, monthly anomalies were used to calculate a 12-month average for each month. Then using an estimate of 14.0C for the global temperature average of the 20th century, 12-month absolute temperatures were calculated from the calculated 12-month average anomalies. Finally, 30-year (360-month) absolute global averages were calculated. Excel's rounding function used to identify ±0.1C changes.
All politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are prone to ludicrous exaggerations, lame mistruths and outright lies as techniques to frighten and push the general public towards accepting an agenda...and leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives and liberals are really exceptional talents in this art of public deception...some very recent climate-liar examples:
"Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face" (Hillary Clinton)..."confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures" (John Kerry)...“Climate change is so much more consequential than ISIS ever was" (Leading Democrat consultant)...“we are not very far” from the point where climate change should be declared an international public health emergency" (UN's Christiana Figueres).....
(click on to enlarge)
Any political success that is achieved by deceit, hyperbole and hysteria always requires a sacrifice of the empirical evidence and unbiased science.
Yet it is scientific facts and methodologies that ultimately win...it follows that the public can only be mislead for so long.
Despite the extremist hyperbole and doomsday-cult scenario hysteria, the science of climate change is rather mundane, from a long-term view: it gets cold and, OMG!, then it gets hot, with some periods of in-between. Climate change is constantly in play; and humans can no more stop its chaotic version of ebbs and flows, let alone ever controlling a single cloud, thunderstorm, hurricane or tornado.
This chart, from the science journal New Scientist, is a prime exhibit of real-world scientific evidence that reveals how inconsequential today's climate change is compared to all previous climate change.
From the chart, it is clear that extreme climate change is a constant; there have been much higher and lower temperatures in the past; modern climate temperatures are not excessive in the least; and, the purported human-induced, "dangerous" modern temperature warming is only a fraction of past natural increases.
We say purported, because our existence is taking place during a global cooling phase (look at chart closely and note the pale blue areas) which is rather long-in-the-tooth, and at some point would normally rebound to warmer temperatures, just naturally. Indeed, the entire warming since the Little Ice Age is likely to be predominantly a natural response to the prior millenniums of extended cooling.
As the chart's inset clarifies, the modern warming since the end of 1949 has been very modest, being completely within the bounds of previous ancient and geological warmings that have been identified by empirical science.
And the "tipping point" warming has become even more modest during the 21st century:
The atmosphere has not experienced statistically significant warming since March 1996.
The oceans have not experienced statistically significant warming since August 1994.
The globe has not experienced statistically significant warming since November 1996.
Memo to GOP elites: Do not just passively accept the climate-liars' exaggerations, hyperbole and factual misrepresentations. The public wants the science facts; they want evidence that challenges the mindless, ludicrous fear-mongering. Crush the Democrats' hysteria with the real science; and denigrate their junk science predictions generated from the failed computer climate models. Facilitate the flow of scientific empirical evidence and debate - hmm...it's called educating the public, eh?
Leftists, progressives, Democrats, liberals, socialists, crony-capitalists, communists, politicians, UN bureaucrats, crony-scientists, mainstream journalists and Hollywood celebrities are acknowledged as the world's climate-porn stars, as well as being in dire need of a basic manual titled 'Climate for Dummies'...their statements regarding global warming and climate change continue to be living proof that stuck-on-stupid and cluelessness are in a constant battle to dominate the leftward thinking brain.....
Without going through a complete litany of embarrassing and moronic left-wing climate change comments by the "elites," several from the past few weeks truly stand out:
===> "The planet is running a fever and there are no emergency rooms" - Democrat Senator Markey from Massachusetts
===>"We no longer need storms or hurricanes to produce flooding - it is becoming an everyday occurrence" - Anne Burchard, the Sierra Club
===> "It's kind of like telling a little girl who's trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there's a substantial chance that she'll be killed." - MIT professor Kerry Emanuel regarding critics of his opinion that catastrophic global warming disasters are today's climate
===> "It’s time for climate-change deniers to face reality’ – ‘They’re fiddling while the planet burns" - NY Daily News editorial page
===>"MSNBC segment claims that climate change could make a real ‘Sharknado’ happen" - a Comcast-owned Obama propaganda outlet
===>"And this, to me, is the most important film [Sharknado 2] ever made about climate change. There is no film, TV thing, special anything, more important than this film." - Actor, Judah Friedlander
===> "A new report says redheads might one day be extinct...when climate change brings an end to cool mist, the climate for red hair will also disappear." - Diane Sawyer, a TV "journalist", U.S. ABC News
===>"NYU Professor: Solve climate change by making people smaller" - S. Matthew Liao, instructor of bioethics at New York University
===>"Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.” - obviously, the very "professional" CNN reporter, Bill Weir
Now, climate change comments like these have been part and parcel nonsense from the left-wing nutcases for over 100 years. As can be readily seen here, climate calamities are the 'forever' essential fear-mongering tactics used by elites and disaster-whσres to convince the public. (Additional crazed quotes from the "elites".)
More importantly, these common anti-science fear tactics are completely divorced from current climate science reality, as the empirical records demonstrate (here, here, here,here and here).
So, are the catastrophe rantings and hate emanating from liberal, progressive Democrats a result of some combination of incredible ignorance and stupendous stupidity regarding climate science?
If so, then maybe a book titled 'Climate for Dummies' would be a welcome science reading assignment for left-wing malnourished brains. Needless to say, said book should include a chapter on the science of temperature trends, made as simple as possible for those addicted to global warming calamity-porn.
Our contribution to the book will be the adjacent "Warming" Speedometer, which is a very simple visual aid to help liberal/progressive/Democrats put those really, really hard concepts of per century temperature trends into a proper context. (click on speedometer to enlarge)
For example, this simple decile infographic displays the entire range of 10-year global warming/cooling trends in per century terms since 1860. What could a climate-porn elite learn from this simple visual aid? (And help them from sounding like an uninformed idiot...)
the lowest per century trend (based on 120-month calculations) was reached during 1887
the highest per century trend was reached in 1983
the June 2014 per century trend falls into bottom half of deciles
the June 2014 trend is actually a global cooling trend
that some 31 years after the 1983 peak of 4.3°C warming trend, the temperature trend collapsed to a -0.1°C per century cooling trend.
Conclusions that a progressive/leftist elite might be able to reach from the simple "warming" speedometer of actual empirical evidence?
Hmm...let's see...that the approximate 1.5 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions (since the industrial age began) has not given Earth an accelerating fever that is causing the planet to burn - that's an unavoidable, rational and informed assessment of climate reality. And also that the world's modern climate, through June 2014, experienced a wide range of temperature trends (which are similar to the historical and ancient natural climate gyrations).
But as many have discovered to their dismay, empirical science means that liberal Democrats actually have to connect-the-dots, which apparently the climate-porn disorder prevents.
Note: Highest temperature trends (per century, based on 120-month calculations) for each decile noted on Speedometer (bottom decile also has lowest listed). HadCRUT4 global dataset used in Excel analysis. 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.
Climate change alarministas claim that modern human CO2 emissions are causing hotter temperatures around the world and the U.S...extreme global warming with blistering temperatures is their rallying cry but is it true?...Nope...it's another case of 'those stubborn facts'.....
(click on top or bottom chart to enlarge)
Of course, the CAGW argument has been (and continues to be) that huge CO2 emissions have produced extremely hot weather records during the 1980's, 90's and the 21st century, so far. But is it true?
Well, as pointed out earlier this year, the feared global warming is not producing the proclaimed hotter temperature records across the world.
And for the U.S.? NOAA confirms the same through June 2014. It is empirically true that the climate alarministas fear-mongering about record-setting extremes are without merit.
Case in point. This collection of charts depict NOAA's climate record frequency for maximum monthly temperatures across the contiguous U.S.
Figure #1 is the record of the 5% hottest months since 1980 in the U.S. Out of 409 months (34+ years), these 20 months represent the extreme. (The light blue data-points are the climate records since 1980 for all charts.)
Figure #2 is the 409-month record starting in 1920. These are the extreme 5% hottest months in the U.S. prior to the 1960s. (The dull red data-points are the climate records since 1920 for all charts.)
Figure #3 reveals that there have been zero months in the U.S. since 1980 that have had over 90 degree monthly averages. In contrast, the 1930's had two. In addition, for the period prior to 1980, there have been 57 months that averaged over 85 degrees while the period since 1980 there have been only 54.
Figure #4 plots the 60 hottest months for the two periods. Clearly, the pre-modern era produced hotter monthly records. These top 60 month plots represent the extreme 14.3% of each respective period.
For CO2 context, total global CO2 emissions are listed for each period (past and modern) on figures #1 and #2. The modern era emission tonnes are higher by a factor of 5+.
The evidence could not be clearer. Huge CO2 emissions, and higher atmospheric CO2 levels, do not correlate with a greater frequency of higher monthly maximum temperature records. This is indisputable.
Does this mean there won't be new record maximum temperatures set in the future? No, it does not. But, with that said, it is highly probable that future maximum records and their frequency have absolutely zero to do with greater CO2 emissions.
Note: Source of U.S. maximum monthly temperatures since 1895 (choose Maximum temperature; choose 1895 and 2014; choose Previous 12-months; choose June; click plot button; scroll down and click Excel icon to download data; in Excel, select period june 1920 thru june 1964 and period june 1980 thru june 2014 (these are the two 409-month periods used in charts);and then sort each period by largest to smallest monthly temperatures. Modern CO2 emission tonnes and past emission tonnes.
Per the empirical measurement evidence published by NASA, the last 15 years of temperature change is not much different than earlier, pre-modern climate change...tepid to lukewarm is about the most alarmist description that fits the CO2 doomsday-cult hysteria.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
As almost everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees, climate change is continuous, accompanied by associated temperature changes. Based on the common measurement techniques utilized, over the last two decades the globe has warmed.
However, with that said, the last 15 years of global warming has really not been too impressive - so unimpressive, that scientists are debatingspeculating what happened to it.
In fact, when examining the moving 15-year temperature changes over the last two decades, the NASA research indicates (despite the gigantic modern human CO2 emissions) that pre-1950 global temperature changes were greater.
Yes, you read that right. When examining absolute 15-year changes in temperature, our modern warming doesn't quite measure-up to earlier warming.
The adjacent chart plots 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature changes (i.e. differences) of the two decades 1924-1944 (starting July 1924, ending June 1944); and plots the 180-month temperature changes of the two decades from July 1994 to June 2014.
As the chart indicates, both periods have similarities, but the greatest long-term global warming took place prior to 1950. The linear trends on the charts denote the continuing acceleration of 15-year warming (red straight line) for the pre-1950 era, versus the decelerating trend of our current times (green straight line), as reported by NASA scientists.
And, as can be observed, both the long-term warming and cooling extremes were greater during the pre-1950 decades. Confirming the pre-1950 weather/climate extremes is rather easy - just read the headlines from that era.
Conclusion: Modern climate and temperature change is somewhat tepid when compared to the natural extreme changes during the 1930s and 1940s. It would seem that human CO2 emissions are not causing unprecedented, accelerating extremes in modern weather and climate over recent 15-year spans, and may actually be dampening the extremes when compared to the past.
Note: The above chart is comparing the 2 decades ending June 1944 versus the 2 decades ending June 2014 - both periods exhibit identifiable warming. NASA dataset used for the moving 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature difference comparison and Excel 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.
The UN's IPCC claim that large modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions are causing maximum temperatures to increase across the globe proves to be without any empirical and scientific merit.....NOAA's NCDC division documents U.S. maximum temperatures are exhibiting a declining trend, not catastrophic "global warming"...
The adjacent chart is a fairly simple plot of the 20 hottest U.S. months, with the corresponding atmospheric CO2 level (black dots) for the respective month.
As the latest NOAA empirical dataset clearly indicates:
===> The hottest U.S. months took place during the 1930s, a very low CO2 period
===> The huge growth of atmospheric CO2 levels after 1949 did not produce the predicted increase of catastrophic, ever higher temperatures
===> The average maximum record temperature prior to 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1895-1949) was higher than the average maximum record temperature post 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1950-2014)
===> Despite the massive human CO2 emissions, maximum temperatures reveal a cooling trend of highs since 1950
This NOAA factual evidence for the continental U.S. confirms what has previously reported for maximum temperatures across the globe.
Note1: My bad. Found dumb error on original chart. Now corrected. No corrections to above text required.
Note2: NOAA U.S. temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above 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.
Has modern human CO2 emissions caused unprecedented, irreversible and accelerating global warming? Convincingly not, per an analysis of UK's gold-standard climate research dataset...certainly, a very inconvenient climate 'FactCheck'.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Regarding claims of "irreversible" and "accelerating" global warming, the scientific empirical evidence (analysis of monthly measurements) comparisons is indisputable: over the last 15+ years, global warming has gone AWOL, which the climate "experts" are mystified about.
Ergo, modern global warming has been in a non-accelerating state, a status reversal taking place since the late 1990's.
Here and here, the scientific evidence from NOAA, when analyzed from a 5-year climate change viewpoint, clearly shows that both modern U.S. and world-wide warming are not "unprecedented" when compared to earlier 20th century periods.
Moving on to a different perspective, the adjacent chart documents that modern atmospheric CO2 levels growth was approximately 6 times greater than during that of the pre-1950 period.
Yet, this immense growth of modern emissions barely produced an uptick in 10-year global warming averages, when compared to a similar time span for the pre-1950s. This is the undeniable result of an analysis of the UK's HadCRUT4 global climate record dataset.
The difference between the two period's 10-year average increase was a trivial +0.1°C - that's well within the range of what natural climate variation could explain. If HadCRUT3 datapoints were used instead, the difference shrinks to +0.05°C.
These differences are meaningless; of no material, meaningful climate consequence; and, totally undeserving of the label "unprecedented."
Climate Change FactCheck Summation: Analyzing 1,853 datapoints of moving 10-year average global temperatures establishes there is no significant empirical evidence from the gold-standard HadCRUT4 climate records that would even suggest that modern-era warming deserves the "unprecedented" designation. Simply stated, scientists and politicians utilizing that adjective are intentionally being deceptive in order to solely advance a political agenda. Likewise, the deceptive use of the descriptors "accelerating" and "irreversible" are also not supported by any scientific evidence.
Additional information regarding the chart:
From a 10-year average global temperature low, established during November 1976, the modern warming period spanned 410 months, ending during December 2010 when the 10-year average peak occurred.
The pre-1950 (prior to the huge 'modern' consumer/industrial CO2 emissions) 10-year average temperature peaked during May 1945. Creating a similar 410-month span, establishes April 1912 as pre-1950 low point for this apple-to-apple comparison.
The atmospheric CO2 level (ppm) growth amounts depicted by the chart are based on these two 410-month periods.
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above infographic and 10-year averages; or download original data from this site. 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.
Previously, using NOAA climate records, past U.S. warming (“global”) in the U.S. was compared to the modern U.S. warming...both warming periods were essentially the same despite the massive human CO2 emissions during the modern era…now an analysis of NOAA global temperatures reveals the same outcome…ah, those stubborn facts.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The gigantic consumer/industrial CO2 emissions during the modern era are claimed by “consensus” climate scientists to have caused rapid, accelerating, unprecedented dangerous warming, never experienced by humans before. But is this claim really true? Does climate reality support the catastrophic climate change hyperbole?
Nope. But you be the judge.
If CO2 emissions really matter, then their impact should be robustly apparent when analyzing long-term 5-year global climate warming averages. Simply stated, the differential impact from the gargantuan, modern CO2 emissions on global 5-year average warming should be significantly greater than pre-modern, natural warming for 5-year averages.
But that’s not the climate reality. Surprised?
As the adjacent graph of NOAA empirical evidence (5-year averages) reveals, the alarmists’ hyperbolic claims are without any scientific merit. The amount of modern warming (red dots) is nearly identical to the earlier 20th century warming (blue dots) that took place in the absence of large CO2 emissions.
In fact, the 381-month periods plotted in the graph have the earlier period warming to be just slightly higher (+0.01°C) than the modern warming.
To simplify, that’s totally contrary to what the UN’ IPCC and the major US and UK climate agencies have claimed and still widely promulgate.
For those more interested in the details of the chart’s plots, we move to a more complete description below…to the details!
Why was a 381-month (31.75 years) period chosen? Simple. Prior to 1950, the 5-year moving average of global temperatures peaked during October 1944. That peak was reached over a span of 381 months, from the starting trough low point of the 5-year average that occurred during February 1913. Voila, 381 months.
The modern 5-year average peak happened during January 2007. Working backwards to create a similar 381-month span, the start month for the modern period span is May 1975.
In order to produce a visual apple-to-apple comparison of the amount of warming for the two periods, the prior period’s 5-year averages were offset to start at the exactly same point as the modern warming period (‘offsetting’ the datapoints does not affect the slope of the earlier period’s warming trend, nor the amount of warming).
Although it is difficult to discern visually, as stated before, the earlier (pre-1950) 20th century warming actually was higher – a miniscule +0.01 degree higher, but still higher. That’s a freaking amazing outcome since all “experts” claim the modern era global warming was “unprecedented” and “unnatural.”
So what happens when the period span is changed to 300 months (25 years), using the same peak months as before (October 1944 and January 2007)?
It swings in favor of the modern span of warming – by incredibly the same amount of +0.01°C.
And if we used a 35-year comparison instead? OMG, modern warming just went berserk, clocking an unbelievable, higher modern warming of…wait for it…+0.07°C degree. (/sarc off)
And what if the comparison’s NOAA-benchmark was the trough-to-peak warming span of November 1976 to January 2007, a 363-month span (30.25 years)? Compared to a similar 363-month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06°C higher, which is smaller than the error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.
Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5-year average warming amounts, the modern era’s warming represents an increase not even one-tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming – it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.
What’s the essential point here?
Those stubborn facts: Well, the amount of trough-to-peak modern warming is almost identical to the amount of pre-1950 trough-to-peak warming, which is clear indication that the modern warming was likely due to the same natural influences, regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions.
Certainly, one can’t conclude that CO2 does not have some role during warming periods, but NOAA’s empirical science research indicates it is ‘best practice’ science to conclude that the vast majority of modern warming was a result of non-human reasons.
As wise old people would say: “it’s the same old, same old.”
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. 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 adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.
Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.
Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."
Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.
The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...
(click on image to enlarge)
Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.
And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.
====> "Here we present[Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."
Per NOAA's published annual mean temperatures, the modern warming trend for the U.S., since the beginning of 1950, amounts to an increase of 1.35°C by century end.
But this modern trend is just +0.36° higher than the trend that existed from 1895 to 1949. For the records, that existing pre-consumer/industrial CO2 trend was already at a significant +0.99°C, by year 2100.
Based on the official climate empirical evidence, as the adjacent chart depicts, this recent measly trend increase (a third of a single degree) of climate change (i.e. U.S. warming) is claimed by IPCC scientists to be a result of the modern, gigantic global emissions approximating over 1.2 trillion tonnes since the end of 1949
Yet, the prior period to the modern era experienced a climate change trend that was equivalent to a 1-degree change. Essentially, a built-in, long-term trend some 3-times larger than the additional modern trend increase.
And this larger, pre-modern, in-the-pipeline warming trend took place when human CO2 emissions were a fraction of the modern era's - literally, one-tenth the amount of emissions (see chart).
Then there is the whole embarrassing issue of the great climate science mystery, which includes the U.S. climate records. During the last 17 years that span from February 1997 through February 2014, the continental U.S. actually cooled at a per century rate of -1.0°C (per NOAA's monthly anomalies).
Now what does all this empirical evidence mean?
Well, obviously, the pre-1950 climate change was significantly greater than that of the modern era. Again, obviously, the modern U.S. climate change has been way over-hyped by politicians and government scientists when put into a historical perspective, as above.
Then there is the indisputable NOAA fact that the last 17 years have witnessed a general cooling for the U.S., which, obviously, is at substantial odds with the "consensus" climate scientists predictions and the IPCC's "expert" computer models.
When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very "global" or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.
Another new study by climate "experts" produces even more speculation as to why the modern global warming 'Pause' has unexpectedly happened ... in the meantime, per NOAA.......
(click on chart to enlarge)
(click on chart to enlarge)
The never predicted 'Pause' has no equal as the chart on the left begins to suggest. This chart is a plot of total temperature anomaly differences (i.e. total monthly change, month by month) since February 1998 through December 2013.
NOAA's year-end 2013 published monthly temperature dataset has identified February 1998 as the highest temperature anomaly month ever. And as the chart indicates, for the subsequent 190 months, that 1998 peak was never topped, despite an average 29.5 billion new tons of CO2 emissions per year over that time span.
Since the modern era beginning with the 1950s, that 190-month stretch is the longest uninterrupted "pause" - simply, this is unprecedented since the era of vast consumer/industrial CO2 emissions commenced.
In contrast, the earlier 190-month period ending February 1998 experienced an almost continuous climb of higher and higher temperature changes, culminating in the early 1998 peak.
This steady climb was supposedly the sole result of the growth of new CO2 emissions (this periods emissions actually averaged some 30% less than the subsequent 190-month period ending in 2013).
Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate "experts," and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.
And like so many experts in so many other science fields, the IPCC climate wonks were wrong, spectacularly. It now stands at 190 months of prediction failure!
Surprised? If yes, review previous of 'those-stubborn-facts' charts here and here.
Note: How calculations were done: For the 190 months ending December 2013 (left chart), the February 1998 anomaly was the base point. The anomaly difference from this base was calculated for each subsequent month. No calculated difference during the 190 months was greater than -0.0001. Similar difference calculations were made for the 190-month period ending February 1998 (see rightmost chart), with that period's base point being April 1982.
Download NOAA 2013 year-end global monthly dataset used for difference calculations and plots (NOAA changes all historical data points for each new month's dataset, so 'C3' will retain this 2013 dataset for the near future). CO2 emission dataset can be downloaded here. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over the last 30 years, the globe has warmed, which no scientist denies.
Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not "unprecedented."
Per NOAA, prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.
This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time (scroll down to the 1940s on this page to learn more about previous global warming).
As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.
And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).
The climate 'FactCheck' summary: the world's climate has experienced a declining ocean warming rate since the 1940s, which contradicts the "consensus" anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, per NOAA. Just another case of those-stubborn-facts ... modern ocean warming is not unprecedented.
Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.
The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.
As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don't even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart - an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)
The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious - how was the IPCC so wrong?
And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC's climate science orthodoxy.
Per the IPCC's gold-standard of global temperature measurements, since the late 1800s, the highest per century warming trend achieved occurred during the 42-year period ending in 1949.
Simply stated, that is when the actual "unprecedented" global warming acceleration was witnessed.
The accompanying graph establishes this as fact, when put in the IPCC context that modern global warming started with the year 1950. This is the decade of the modern era that the newest IPCC report asserts when human CO2-induced climate change began. (See the red circle? More on that fact in a bit.)
Depending on which IPCC spokesperson's claim is to be believed, since 1950 the "accelerating" global warming is not only unprecedented, it's "rapid", "dangerous", "irrefutable", "indisputable", "undeniable", "incontrovertible" and, of course, "irreversible".
However, the empirical evidence does not support any of these claims.
First, the adjacent chart's essentials. The modern period of 1950 to 2013 is 64 years long, which the IPCC characterizes as being dominated by human CO2 emissions with little natural climate influence. The chart's orange curve represents this modern period.
The chart's green plot represents the 64 years ending in 1949 (from 1886 to 1949), the year designated by the IPCC as the end of natural climate change's dominant impacts. Okay, now note the red circle and red dashed line that intersects the green curve: that's when unprecedented warming took place.
Adding some more context, each of the two 64-year periods had human CO2 emissions. For the modern period since 1950, an approximate 1.2 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions were released, while the earlier period had some 200 billion tonnes - that's a 6x difference.
Yet, as this charts reveals, the per century warming trends are remarkably similar with the fastest warming acceleration happening in the earlier period. This overall similarity takes place despite the incredible increase of human CO2 emissions after 1949.
Indeed, there are amazing similarities between the two periods but they do have differences. There is a significant divergence of trends at the 24-year mark where the modern warming trend starts to decline while the pre-1950 trend continues to increase for another 7 years. In addition, at the 11-year mark, the modern temperature trend does an abrupt reversal from negative (i.e. cooling trend) to warming for the next 4 years, then it reverses again until it also reaches a cooling trend for the 5-year mark ending 2013.
Ultimately, what is the overall impact of CO2 emissions on modern climate change when using the IPCC's year 1950 start? Over the 64 years ending in 2013, the global warming trend was +0.74°C per century. In contrast, the per century trend was +0.65°C for the earlier 64-year period ending 1949.
That's correct, all that separates these two extended periods of global warming is likely an unmeasurable +0.09°C - nine hundredths of a single degree.
The UK's HadCRUT4 global empirical evidence makes it very clear: modern acceleration of warming temperatures is not unprecedented, nor unusual due to CO2 emissions; nor does the modern period exhibit any warming trend that comes close to even 1.5°C per century. In summary, it is highly probable that any modern warming was just a continuation of rebound warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, natural climate change still rules.
Synopsis: The unprecedented, long-term climate change and global warming actually took place over 40 years ago.
One of the reasons that the UK's HadCRUT global temperature series is considered the 'gold-standard' is its reaching back to year 1850 - a year that is considered near the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
This dataset's superior length allows analysis of long-term climate change since the LIA, including the widely accepted 60-year cycle of global temperatures.
The adjacent chart plots 60-year global temperature changes and cumulative atmospheric CO2 level changes since 1850, using the annual HadCRUT4 dataset.
From this chart, the following can be discerned:
===>Long-term climate change (60-years), as evidenced by temperature change, has been increasing as the globe has rebounded from the depths of the Little Ice Age
===>Long-term warming started well in advance of huge modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions of post-WWII.
===>Unprecedented warming ended with the 60-year peak around 1969 and subsequent long-term warming has returned to very modest levels.
===>Claimed "accelerating" temperature warming does not exist in the more recent long-term record - however, there are 60-year periods of cooling and warming spurts that are the likely result of natural cycles.
===>Both the chart's fitted trend and 10-year average curve (cyan and dark blue, respectively), reveal a temperature change direction that is vastly different (i.e. opposite) of the trend exhibited by the growing cumulative CO2 ppm levels.
===>The hypothesized AGW positive feedback, which supposedly leads to accelerating temperature increases and long-term, "tipping point" climate change, is without any empirical evidence merit
===>Prior to 1970, HadCRUT4 documents four exceptional 60-year warming peaks that are equal or larger than either the modern era's 1998 and 2010 peak.
===>The chart depicts long-term climate change (per changes in temperatures) that is constant, never ending - at times dramatic, and other periods, exhibiting more subtle changes
In summary, the immense growth of cumulative CO2 levels over the last 40+ years has had minimal long-term impact on global temperature change. Recent temperature changes are more likely the result of a combination of the remaining natural warming rebound from the LIA end and natural cycles, which produced those large 60-year temperature increases prior to 1970.
Peer reviewed studies continue to be published, adding to the unequivocal evidence that climate change was common in the past, often with temperatures higher than modern averages.
The evidence confirms that modern temperatures are not unprecedented nor that human CO2 emissions are required for climate change to happen.
A new study:"A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change reconstructs temperatures in Northern Fennoscandia [within the Arctic circle] over the past 1,600 years.....demonstrating that the Arctic was warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period. The paper adds to over 1,000 peer-reviewed published non-hockey-sticks finding the Medieval Warm Period was global, as warm or warmer than the present, and that there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about the current warm period.....Furthermore, the authors find a natural 70-80 year oscillation of temperatures, similar to the 60-70 year oscillation of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO]." (paper abstract)
World Extreme Temperature Map (click on to enlarge)
For several decades now, consensus climate experts predicted that human CO2 emissions would produce extreme climate change for the world, which would be an existential threat to civilization.
Experts spoke of boiling oceans and Venus-like atmospheres caused by humans use of fossil fuels. At the heart of these soon-to-be catastrophic climate disasters was runaway and tipping point warming - hotter and hotter temperatures that kept ratcheting up.
It didn't happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.
Recently, the climate change myth that global warming is "accelerating" has been shattered by the near-zilch warming for the last 17 years - indeed, to the point where even climate change alarmist scientists are being forced to admit that 'the pause' remains unexplained.
Another climate myth that can no longer weather the empirical storm is that human CO2 emissions have created an "unprecedented" global warming change regime. Of course, this myth completely melts when contrasted to previous climate warmings during ancient and historical periods.
Yet, it is still a widely accepted myth for periods since 1980 - that human CO2 has caused unprecedented temperature increases, far outpacing any previous 20th century warming increases. That is not true, though, per the NOAA empirical evidence of the climate record.
The above chart depicts the last 100 years of global warming increases, segmented by two 50-year periods, which handily exposes the lameness of the myth.
The column on the left shows the cumulative NOAA temperature change over 50 years, starting in 1914, including the atmospheric change in CO2 levels (black vertical bar) over that same 50 years. The column on the right represents the same information, but instead for the 50-year period starting in 1964.
One does not have to be a climate "rocket" scientist to recognize that the earlier 20th century warming increase was greater than the modern warming. And it is painfully clear, even to proponents of this myth, that the earlier warming increase took place while the CO2 level change was a fraction of that during the modern 50-year period ending in 2013.
From this actual NOAA/NCDC climate record, one can fairly surmise the following: First, modern global warming change is not accelerating, nor unprecedented. Second, that natural climate change is most likely responsible (seeNature science journal article) for the majority of warming increases experienced during the two 50-year periods, not human CO2 emissions.
A new peer reviewed study based on an analysis of megafossil tree remains documents the indisputable conclusion: it was warmer during both the Roman and Medieval periods - ergo, extreme climate change can happen without human involvement.
The above plots (click each plot to enlarge) of ancient tree lines from previous research provides ample evidence that indeed climates were warmer prior to human CO2 emissions. This new research examines 455 radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils from Scandinavian region.
that mega-fossil analysis is the only methodology that can "accurately document the existence of a certain tree species at a certain spot and at a certain point of time in the past."
indicates that "summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present,"
that "the pine tree line was about 100 m higher than today (i.e., early 21st century) c. 1940 and 1300-930 cal. years BP," while noting that "the same applies to birch by c. 1700 and 1300 cal years BP," which clusters "represent the Medieval and Roman times."
that "these temperature anomalies were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age."
that "the emergence during the past two millennia of at least two short-term tree line and thermal excursions to higher than present levels (i.e. early 21st century) indicates that the current performance of the ecological and climatic systems is well within the envelope of the natural variability
that "the pine tree line (and summer temperature) was consistently higher than present ... during the Roman and Medieval periods, c. 1900 and 1000 cal years BP."
Note: Doing a search of the internet did not result in finding a definition for 'megafossil' yet a definition for 'microfossil' was readily available. For purposes of this posting, megafossil refers to fossilized material that can be viewed with the naked eye.
Steve McIntyre analyzed the Southern Hemisphere historical temperature information contained in the recent IPCC AR5 report and documents an amazing discovery.
Extreme, absurd cherry-picking that defies objective, impartial science.
In essence, the IPCC's representation of Southern Hemisphere temperature changes is biased with unrelated Northern Hemisphere paleo-temperature datasets; the IPCC ignores established, widely accepted Southern datasets such as Antarctica's ice core evidence, as displayed here (click on image to enlarge).
Not only does the IPCC avoid utilization of the the inconvenient Vostok ice core temperatures that reveal the Medieval Warming period for the Southern latitudes, they chose to use Northern datasets that have been widely criticized for being error-filled and massively manipulated via questionable, non-standard statistical techniques.
Like previous IPCC reports, the AR5 edition obviously shares the agenda-science traits of absurd cherry-picking, gross misrepresentations and ludicrous fabrications, which confirms the accusations that green-alarmists have completely corrupted climate science.
Note: As the chart depicts, the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has exhibited an overall cooling trend over the last 5,000 years, with multiple peaks and valleys. This persistent cooling trend is also evident from the Greenland ice core dataset. While the polar regions share many temperature change similarities, their warming/cooling phases occur during different years/decades with different amplitude - i.e., narrowly speaking, perfect synchronization of polar climates does not exist.
Back in 2008, Climate Sanity did an article about Arctic warming, creating the adjacent top graphic that highlights 14 different peer reviewed studies. (click to enlarge image)
The light pink areas represent large geographical areas where the past Arctic climate, over the last 3,000 to 9,000 years, was warmer than today's.
Recently, 'C3' posted an article regarding 15 studies that determined the Medieval Arctic warming was greater than the current warming.
In addition, the adjacent bottom graphic depicts both past and modern tree lines and permafrost boundaries. This inconvenient empirical evidence confirms that in the past trees were able to grow farther north (due to a warmer northern climate) than our modern period; also, today's permafrost boundary stretches farther south due to a modern climate that is cooler.
Despite this preponderance of empirical evidence and multiple peer reviewed studies about the present and past Arctic climate, a new moss (lichen) study by Miller et al. 2013 makes a bogus claim that today's Arctic temperatures are warmer than the past 44,000 to 120,000 years.
This bogus claim has all sorts of scientific lameness, falsehoods and wild misrepresentations associated with it, as described by experts here, here, here and here.
The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim.
latest study's bogus science affirms, anti-science cherry-picking
remains alive and well in "scientific" circles pushing the discredited catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Just another example of 'the ends justify the means' style of agenda-science.
And BTW, the top graphic does not include the recent Baffin Island icecap study and another Island study using lake sediment cores, which both confirm that the modern Arctic temps are cooler than the past.
Climate history is replete with peer reviewed research and historical anecdotal evidence that both the Roman and Medieval warming eras were likely warmer than current modern temperatures.
This new study (see adjacent plot) adds to the cornucopia of empirical evidence that natural climate change (warming & cooling) is a powerful force, taking place constantly. This research also confirms the likelihood that our modern warming is more a result of natural forces than greenhouse gases.
Those stubborn facts of natural climate change are without mercy to those who espouse anti-scientific, anti-empirical claims, especially the bogus "unprecedented" claim, no?
New research discovers ancient tree stumps that existed under an Alaskan glacier for thousands of years.
The retreating glacier confirms that climate temperatures were much warmer from at least the Minoan period to the Medieval era.
At some point, the climate became cooler and the actual trees were snapped at the stump level, then buried in the glacier's ice for centuries. Finally, the stumps were revealed as the climate returned to warmer temperatures in the rebound from the Little Ice Age.
This actual climate evidence is corroborated by the empirical ice core dataset from Greenland. As the ice core empirical evidence depicts, the ancient periods of the Minoans, Romans and the Medieval era were warmer than the present.
This Greenland evidence also reveals that temperatures have been in an overall cooling phase for the last some 3,500 years, which eventually led to the global glaciers' growth that ultimately would bury trees and forests, such as Alaska's Mendenhall glacier described in this article.
This new research adds to the mountain of empirical evidence and studies that refutes the IPCC's claim that modern temperatures (i.e., global warming) are "unprecedented".
Hmmm...the IPCC climate "science" always seems to be contradicted by those stubborn facts, no?
The empirical evidence is irrefutable, no longer debatable.
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Period, also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
In all cases, across both hemispheres, the large, natural climate changes took place without any human CO2 influence.
This means that natural climate change is caused by other factors that are of either earthly or (and) cosmic/solar origins.
Using sediment cores from two lakes in the Qaidam Basin of the northern Tibetan Plateau, Chinese researchers reconstructed temperatures back some 2,000 years.
Their research was unequivocal: modern warming has been cooler than past warming periods. They also confirmed that the climate naturally made shifts between warm/cool regimes. Plus, the climate shifts appear to be associated with solar activity.
Note: Historical temperature charts and previous climate-history articles.
Anti-science alarmists and pro-global warming ('AGW') scientists are very enamored with multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, which allows "researchers" to statistically blend and torture different forms of data to force a "confession" that modern warming has been "unprecedented" - however, as expert skeptics have discovered, these studies are often found to be empirically and statistically-challenged garbage and end up being a cornucopia of unintended contradictions...the new PAGES2K paleo-torture study is the latest example
The new Kaufman et al. study (aka as the 'PAGES2K' research) is getting its initial web-wide forensic review in multiple articles across the web, including here, here, here, here and here.
The two images above are derived from one of the study's own charts (see the Bob Tisdale article).
The chart on the left depicts those areas of the world that experienced modern warming supposedly greater than any warming over the last 2,000 years; and, the chart on the right represents those areas where modern warming was less than that of certain periods during the past 2,000 years. Both charts have the past 2,000 year atmospheric levels superimposed (the pinkish curve) on them.
It is from the Tisdale analysis that it first becomes apparent that the law of unintended consequences has interestingly come into play - the study's authors have actually built a case (be it likely an unforced error) that supports the views of the majority of catastrophic global warming skeptics/lukewarmers.
From the study itself, and a close review of the above images, we now know the following:
First, as even the New York Times points out, this study determined that the Arctic was warmer during the 1940s to 1970s than during years of the late 20th century. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Greenland ice core data, modern warming is still below peaks of the Medieval & Roman periods.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Second, the study determined that periods prior to 1000AD had warmer temperatures in Europe. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Third, this study finds Antarctica was warmer, from the 2nd through 13th centuries, than during our modern era. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Vostok ice core data, modern warming is still below the peak temperature between 1AD and 1000AD.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fourth, this study points out that true global warming has not taken place in the modern era, but regional strong warming has. Of the 7 regional areas analyzed, only 3 exhibit a strong warming (more likely only 2, see point #11 below). The other four regions, not so much. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fifth, the study clearly indicates that major climate change is taking place at all times, in different manners, across the globe. Climate change is not some new modern phenomenon. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Sixth, the study shows atmospheric CO2 levels are not a cause of past major climate change. Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, CO2 levels are stable yet climate change is constantly happening. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Seventh, the study documents that unprecedented regional warming takes place regardless of low/high atmospheric CO2 levels.Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eighth, this study, in combination with the known recent global temperature trend (subsequent to this study's ending date of 2000AD), clearly makes an indisputable case that recent modern global warming is not as claimed: unprecedented; unequivocal; irrefutable; irreversible; nor dangerously accelerating. Confirms view of skeptics.
Ninth, this study affirms that periods of "unprecedented" warming do not cause the IPCC's urban legend of "runaway," "tipping point," dangerous global warming. Of course, the hottest period ever recorded (Minoan era) in the ice cores over the last 4,000 years already proved that the mythical "tipping point" is just that. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Tenth, this study again provides proof that the AGW-alarmist researchers will use each and every attempt to remove and/or minimize the exceptional Medieval Warming Period that the vast majority of local/regional paleoresearchstudies, and the historical literature, have well documented. It is simply freaking amazing that this group of researchers would present an analysis of Europe's past warming without the extreme and extended warming of the Medieval era (see chart onright). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eleventh, this study clearly proves to the public that the proponents of AGW-alarmism will utilize excessive cherry-picking ofempirical paleo research to fabricate their "scientific" claims of modern "unprecedented" warming. Not only did this study exclude the preponderance of paleo-scientists' research that documents past extreme warming, but this study was brazen enough to include paleo temperature reconstructions that even a peer-reviewed science journal ultimately rejected because of its statistical flim-flam. Without the infamous, widely discredited Gergis et al. study, it is highly likely that the "Australasia" region of the above chart on the left would have to be moved to the chart of the right, above - thus leaving just 2 regions of the world that may have had modern "unprecedented" warming in the 20th century, and only a single region of the world that had "unprecedented" warming since 1970 (recall that this study confirmed the Arctic was warmer from the 1940s to the 1970s). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Conclusion: This multi-cherry-picking proxy study has many claiming that modern temps are the "hottest" across the globe, over the last 1,400 years. In fact, as the above information clarifies, some regions of the world had strong modern warming (that is, supposedly), while the majority did not. As this study itself determines, global warming, cooling and climate change are not done in some lock step manner across the world in a monotonous cause and effect relationship with CO2. Skeptics of both the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria and the elites' CO2-kills fanaticism have pointed this out for years (if not decades). The geological and historical records/datasets support the essentials of the non-hysterical skeptic/lukewarmers' analysis of climate change, and now this study suggests the alarmist community has inadvertently accepted many of the same views.
The bogus "unprecedented" modern warming claims by the IPCC and catastrophic global warming 'hystericals' takes another body blow - newly released Arctic region empirical evidence (from Svalbard) confirms that Medieval Period was robustly warmer than the world-ending, hypothetical CO2-induced modern warming feared by alarmists
The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.
The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.
Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.
The anti-science Democrats and left-wing greens absolutely hate the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), due to its invalidation of the modern CO2 global warming-climate change hypothesis - no matter their extraordinarilylame corrupted/bogus attempts to prove otherwise, the objective empirical evidence continues to confirm the MWP was an uniquely extended warm era
In another fascinating exposé of climate science flim-flam produced by yet another group of academia climate-quacks, Steve McIntyre has the adjacent chart embedded in his article.
This chart represents a 5,000 year span of temperature variation in the Arctic region (Ellesmere Island) per peer-reviewed research . To add context, we superimposed the atmospheric CO2 levels (mauve curve) from the last 2,000 years.
Several very obvious conclusions can be drawn that gut claims by anti-science alarmists and quacks:
1. Climate change is a science-proven constant.
2. Periods of global warming and global cooling happen frequently
3. The Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the modern era
4. Temperatures changed regardless of CO2 levels
5. CO2, be it natural or human, is not the globe's "thermostat"
Finally, per the HockeySchtick blog, it is known that the essentially barren Ellesmere Island had temperatures some 2 to 3 degrees higher than current temps, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions of our modern consumer/industrial era.
The UN's IPCC claims that modern global warming is "unprecedented" continues to be robustly discredited by the newest scientific research - another peer reviewed study confirms that the Medieval Warming (plus the Roman and Minoan) periods had significantly warmer summers (Kamchatka, Siberia) than our current period, which has atmospheric CO2 levels exceeding 350 ppm
Read here. Scientists from Europe and Russia reconstructed temperatures from a Kamchatka Peninsula sediment core that contained chironomids. As the chart on the right depicts, the scientists determined that there were extended periods, well before CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels of 350 ppm and greater, when summer temperatures were well above modern temps.
"A paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs Arctic temperatures in Kamchatka, USSR over the past 4,500 years and finds the highest reconstructed temperatures were about 3.8°C warmer than modern temperatures. The authors find "the highest reconstructed temperature reaching 16.8 °C between 3700 and 2800 years before the present," about 3.8°C above "modern temperatures (∼13 °C)." In addition, the data shows temperatures between 2500 - 1100 [during the Medieval and Roman warming periods] were about 1-2°C above modern temperatures of ~13°C." [Larisa Nazarova, Verena de Hoog, Ulrike Hoff, Oleg Dirksen, Bernhard Diekmann 2013: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Climate change and global warming/cooling are the constant factors of Earth's history regardless of human CO2 emissions - a new study confirms that unprecedented Medieval and Roman period temperatures in the New Mexico area were significantly warmer than current
(click on image to enlarge)
Read here. The empirical research for the unprecedented temperatures during the Roman and Medieval periods continues to build.
As this chart depicts, the New Mexico region of the southwest U.S. experienced considerably warmer temperatures than those of the modern era.
As can be seen, extreme climate change took place frequently in the past, well before any influence of humans on the landscape and the atmosphere from CO2 emissions.
A paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology reconstructs climate change in central New Mexico, USA over the past 12,800 years and finds mean annual temperatures were ~1°C warmer than the present during
the Roman Warming Period 2,000 years ago, the Medieval Warming Period
1,000 years ago, as well as during other unnamed warming periods in the
past. The paper also shows cold periods were relatively wet, and warm
periods relatively dry, the opposite of the claims of climate alarmists.
Furthermore, the paper shows that mean annual precipitation today is
neither dry nor wet in comparison to the precipitation extremes over the
past 4,000 years. [Stephen A. Hall, William L. Penner 2012: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
UK and U.S. left-wing agenda "scientists," associated with the IPCC fraudulent hockey-stick affair, attempted to dictate to other scientists that the Medieval Warming Period was an isolated phenomenon only experienced by the Europe/North Atlantic region -- most paleo-climate researchers rejected the lame arguments of the IPCC authors and continued to find non-European regions that experienced the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), including Obama's birthplace
Nope, we're not speaking of Obama's first birthplace, the one before he decided to run for U.S. president, although Kenya does have a warm and humid climate.
Instead, the research was done in the Hawaii area, the newer birthplace of Obama after his U.S. Senate election. Specifically, the study was done at the scenicKealia Pond, Maui.
These scientists wanted to determine what impact the MCA had on the tropical island, where the UN's IPCC scientists had claimed there was no impact. As scientists dedicated to the scientific truth, they ignored the IPCC's dictates (i.e., flimsy reasoning) and pursued their research.
"Based on "high-resolution palynological, charcoal, and sedimentological analysis of a sediment core from Kealia Pond, Maui, coupled with archaeological and historical records,"... Pau et al. developed "a detailed chronology of vegetation and climate change since before human arrival."...Most pertinent was the three researchers' finding that "a shift from dry to wet climate conditions marked the beginning of the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) as evidenced by a precipitation reconstruction based on a pollen abundance index." They note, for example, that over the 2500 years of their record "there have been two major climatic events: first the MCA (AD 800-1300), followed by the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850)."...In the case of the early inhabitants of Maui, Pau et al. write that "an increase in forest resources during this wet climate interval coincided with rapid Polynesian population growth," which suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity for them..." [Stephanie Pau, Glen M. MacDonald, Thomas W. Gillespie 2012: Annals of the Association of American Geographers]
Regardless of which falsehood of Obama's birthplace one chooses to believe, there is no choice concerning the truth regarding the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Its impact has been substantiated by reams of empirical research and peer reviewed articles. The Medieval Warming Period impact was immense, stretching across the entire world, even touching the tropical islands of Hawaii.
The unprecedented Medieval Warming Period is again confirmed by new Switzerland research - the MWP and subsequent cooling are both products of natural forces and not a result of large human CO2 emissions
Read here. The vast majority of scientific research documents the major warming and cooling periods prior to the 20th century. These periods of climate change exhibited large temperature swings across many regions of the world, well before the growth of industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
A new study by Larocque-Tobler et al. provides more evidence that the Medieval Warming was not only significant, but remains unprecedented in some regions. Likewise, the subsequent Little Ice Age cooling was significantly colder than experienced in the 20th century.
"Working with a lake sediment core extracted in AD 2005 from the deepest point of Seebergsee in the northern Swiss Alps,... mathematically analyzed the taxonomy of chironomid assemblages they identified in the sediments and used the results to reconstruct mean July air temperatures for the past 1000 years. This work revealed a Medieval Warm Period that began some time before AD 1000 (where their temperature history had its beginning) and lasted until about AD 1250, the peak temperature of which was approximately 0.9°C greater than the peak temperature near the end of their record..." [I. Larocque-Tobleration, M.M. Stewart, R. Quinlan, M. Trachsel, C. Kamenik, M. Grosjean 2012: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Conclusion: Natural climate variation can cause dramatic climate change, which the unprecedented Medieval Warming Period represents. This level of extreme climate change can happen regardless of the amount and growth of human CO2 emissions.
Greenland's recording of both natural cooling and warming climate change proves that modern global warming is modest at best - as the evidence indicates, in the scheme of past climate change, current warming is well within natural variation
The Little Ice Age (LIA) is a well documented climate change period that was a global phenomenon. For the Northern Hemisphere, the coldest temperatures were reached during the mid-to-late 1600's, and then a much needed warming rebound started.
The adjacent painting depicts London in 1677, which is almost the same moment when Greenland reached its coldest temperatures after some 600 years of cooling (per the Greenland ice core dataset).
For 337 years since the bottom of the LIA, the world has been slowly but surely warming. That rebound warming though has only amounted to an approximate 2.2C degree increase as indicated by the ice core temperatures (Kobashi et al. estimated a current ice core decadal temperature of -29.9C degrees).
So, in the scheme of climate change, how does this most recent warming compare to previous warmings (and coolings)?
Using the temperature reconstructions from the Greenland ice sheet, it can be determined what the temperature change and duration was for each of the last 10 cooling periods and the last 10 warming periods (including the period since the LIA). From this information we know the following:
Climate change warming periods ranged in duration from 240 to 680 years
Climate change warming periods ranged in temperature increases from +0.8 to +3.7 degrees
Climate change cooling periods ranged in duration from 205 to 690 years
Climate change cooling periods ranged in temperature increases from -1.1 to +3.1 degrees
In contrast to the previous 9 significant warming periods, the modern warming has lasted only 337 years (from trough to current peak) with a temperature rise of only 2.2C degrees. It has been the 5th highest warming of the 10 and is only average in duration.
In contrast to the previous 9 cooling periods, the Little Ice Age lasted 643 years (from peak to trough) with a temperature decrease of 1.6(C) degree. It was the 3rd coldest cooling of the 10 and is one of the longest in duration.
Conclusion: Over some 9,000 years, the ice sheets of Greenland have faithfully recorded natural climate change and the associated temperature changes. These past changes, both warming and cooling, have produced greater temperature changes and lasted longer than the current modern warming and the more recent Little Ice Age. Although increasing CO2 levels from human emissions may have enhanced our modern, modest global warming, the lion's share of the warming rebound is likely from natural forces, which produced the same in the long ago past, multiple times.
Note: We used a 200 year minimum span to identify significant duration periods of warming and cooling.