A strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is a necessary condition of the CO2-based AGW hypothesis.
So, what does a strong correlation look like?
for example, the top chart (A) for two economic variables reveals an
incredibly strong correlation, a 'cause and effect' that is strikingly
obvious since 2007. (see original here)
bottom chart (B) reveals the correlation between temperatures
(GISS/NASA) and CO2 levels during the exact same time period as chart A.
Look carefully - THERE IS NO CORRELATION! And over the last 15 years, the R2 equals a miserably low 0.05
Unicorn climate science ignores the empirical evidence, replaced with wishful fantasies that don't exist in the real world.
P.S. Yep, the bottom chart does plot a slight cooling trend for the NASA temperature dataset since January 2007. (NASA/CO2 plot sources here; used Excel to produce the plots, linear trend and correlation)
Billions upon billions have been poured into climate research and the infamous climate computer models - after those untold billions, the newest CMIP5 climate models are still unable to predict global temperatures with any accuracy
Computer models, in general, are essentially worthless as policy tools when the number of variables and complexity of the relationships are beyond easy human comprehension.
Complex, mind-boggling multivariate models more often than not produce a huge surplus of garbage output (see chart) that confuses both policymakers and the public, resulting in poor policy choices and failed implementation strategies and tactics.
Combine that typical outcome with the well known phenomenon of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) that is inherent to all computer simultations and the likely result is a manifesto for a big fail.
Some recent public examples of computer complex simulation fiascoes include: computer models causing a 2-year delay in finding the black box from Air France Flight 474; the hysterical computer projections about potential bird flu deaths; the abysmal computer prediction regarding Obama's "stimulus" affect on unemployment; and, of course, the Federal Reserve's 2007 econometric model prediction that completely missed the soon-to-be 'Great Recession' - and don't forget the recent gargantuan fail of these type of "expert" computer models.
So it should come as no surprise that computer attempts at predicting outcomes for the incredibly complex, chaotic world's climate are bound to fail.
To that point, it has been recently observed that past climate model forecasts have been spectacular failures due to bad assumptions and a fanatical blind loyalty to a very weak (lame?) AGW hypothesis. And as the above chart indicates, the newest CMIP5 climate simulations appear to be not much better.
Thus, it is a safe bet that proposing trillion-dollar climate solutions based on the outputs of these new models will prove to be another common sense (no computer needed) predictable disaster. However, that will again be in hindsight for the political elites and mainstream journalists.
The global warming science facts can often be so brutal for the climate-doomsday-from-CO2 alarmists >>> the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has determined that Asian pollution will warm the globe so much that it offsets any U.S. CO2 emission reductions
Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.
The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.
"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
The global warming science facts conclusions: Any attempt by the U.S. to massively reduce its CO2 emissions will be a total waste of money and effort as Asian pollution will easily offset that attempt. This NCAR analysis is eye-opening and should be seriously considered by America's policymakers. But it should be remembered that this analysis is based on global climate models, which have been incredibly ineffectual at predicting temperatures, let alone climate conditions across the world or in specific regions. And it should be pointed out that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 years have been on a cooling trend of minus 2 degrees (F) per century through April 2012 - for some reason, all those past Asian pollutants have not warmed the U.S.
The global warming science facts, black carbon is a major pollutant that not only kills thousands per year but has been found to be a major contributor to increasing global temperatures - a new peer reviewed study confirms findings of previous research
Read here. While climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits wasted everyone's time and money about catastrophic destruction from CO2-induced global warming and climate change, real scientists continued their investigations of the climate and what drives it. Latest research confirms what the National Academy of Sciences published way back in 2000.
A new study by Allen et al. has determined that black carbon and other modern pollutants have been major contributors to temperature warming, which has enhanced the expansion of the tropics into higher latitudes. This research also confirms that the IPCC's insistence that human CO2 is the principal driver of climate change is seriously wrong, beside being hopelessly outdated.
"Observational analyses have shown the width of the tropical belt increasing in recent decades as the world has warmed...we use a climate model with detailed aerosol physics to show that increases in heterogeneous warming agents—including black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone—are noticeably better than greenhouse gases at driving expansion, and can account for the observed summertime maximum in tropical expansion. Mechanistically, atmospheric heating from black carbon and tropospheric ozone has occurred at the mid-latitudes, generating a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet, thereby relocating the main division between tropical and temperate air masses." [Robert J.Allen, Steven C. Sherwood, Joel R. Norris, Charles S. Zender 2012: Nature]
Conclusions: The global warming science facts - black carbon, a major modern pollutant, is causing global warming and an expansion of the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere. Latest research confirms that human CO2 emissions are not the only human driver of global temperatures. Of course, this new research does not explain why global temperatures have fallen over the last 15 years, unless there is now less black carbon pollution.
As the famous anti-CO2 fanatic Bill McKibben would say, "connect-the-dots": global warming in recent decades, as reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by NASA, is a result of non-CO2 pollutants, not CO2 as claimed by the IPCC
Read here. As early as 2000, NASA had discovered that the real causes of the prior rapid global warming were a result of non-CO2 pollutants. The NASA team that made this discovery was led by none other than the famous James Hansen, the patron saint of 'wrong-way' AGW on the left here.
Subsequent to those findings (btw, did we mention... ahem...the study was published by the National Academy of Sciences?), these scientists then discovered that the real money (funding, grants, perpetual salaries etc.) could be found by focusing on human CO2 emissions instead. Thus, this NASA paper was quietly forgotten about.
The connect-the-dots, global-warming-is-money-paradigm helps explain why climate doomsday scientists keep perpetrating such scientific atrocities as Fakegate and Climategate.
Read here, here, here, here and here. A clown-like PNAS peer-reviewed study by a group of green professors, none of whom are climate or atmospheric scientists (Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock) purports to explain how the IPCC's climate scientists and their climate models got it sooo wrong in regards to the well documented lack of global warming since 1998.
Their theory, widely reported by both an uncritical mainstream media and compliant, gullible bloggers & pundits, is that China's growing coal use emitted the needed sulfur emissions to stop global warming during the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's a clownish theory based on, at best, flimsy, pretend climate science and minimal actual empirical evidence.
1. Unlike annual compiled CO2 emissions and CO2 monthly atmospheric levels, recent sulfur emissions and SO2 atmospheric aerosol levels are guesstimates. This study is based on guesstimates, which are based on tenuous assumptions, which are likely not a reflection empirical reality.
2. It is estimated by these authors that coal sulfates increased around 2004, well after the global non-warming phase had already started.
3. Unlike climate-impacting volcano sulfate aerosol ejections that travel multiple kilometers into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), sulfate emissions (aerosol particles) from coal remain in the lower atmosphere and are resident only for a short time as they are quickly washed out of the air by precipitation ("acid rain").
4. Coal sulfate emissions are not well mixed in the atmosphere, which means they are not well distributed around the globe meaning their global impact on temperatures is severely limited.
5. A previous NASA satellite measurement analysis published by atmospheric experts found no increase in global aerosol optical depth over the years 2000 through 2006.
6. Despite China's large increase in coal burning, aggregate global sulfate emissions have dramatically decreased because worldwide coal plants are burning coal with less sulfur and newer smokestack (flue) scrubber technology.
7. The empirically measured impact of coals' SO2 on temperatures is not settled, with science research suggesting that sulfur aerosols in the lower atmosphere are actually a cause of warming, not cooling.
8. Natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations are significantly better explanations of the non-global warming over the 1998-2008 period than the lame, meritless, speculative sulfur emissions hypothesis.
9. In another NASA study, it was found that aerosol particulates in the atmosphere have declined since the 1990's.
(click on any image to enlarge)
Estimated human SO2 emissions, generally declining with estimated slight increase around 2005-2005 (source for left, right):
Aggregate coal SO2 emissions adjusted for use of cleaner coal and use of improved scrubber tecnhology, declining overall, everywhere (source):
Aerosol (including SO2 particulates) optical depth comparisons from satellite measurements for years 2001, 2004, and 2008. Little change over several years of Kaufmann et al. study, and satellite data reveals aerosols to be of a local/regional concern, not a global issue (source):
Study's authors own graphical representation of their estimate of SO2 warming/cooling impact (purple curve) on global temperatures (blue curve). Even their own assessment would indicate little, if any, impact from human sulfur emissions during span of 1998 to 2008 (source).
The above graph has all curves removed except for global temperatures and sulfur forcing. Below, the SOI (index of the Southern Oscillation) curve (green) is added back to the study's original graph.
Focusing on the blue box representing the period analyzed by the study, one quickly sees that both the SOI and global temps are highly variable. Looking closer, there is a relationship evident between the SOI and temperatures - when the SOI heads in one direction, the global temps head in the opposite direction a few months later.
Apparently, the authors of this study chose to ignore Gaia's Southern Oscillation (and/or other major ocean/atmosphere oscillations) despite its obvious influence on cooling global temps from 1998 to 2008. Instead they focus on the purple curve (sulfur emissions forcing) that just as obvious had a fraction of Gaia's impact on temperatures.
As Judith Curry (a renowned climate scientist) states:
"I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance...the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors."
Read here and here (scroll down to "A most interesting new paper").
Scientists who are proponents of catastrophic global warming now admit there has been no warming since 1998. They blame increased aerosol pollutants from China as being the reason why temperatures are cooling versus warming. Unfortunately, actual air quality measurements reveal the galactic bogosity of that claim. (click on charts to enlarge)
For example, U.S. air quality since 1990 has improved tremendously with vast reductions in air aerosols and particulates as the chart on left reveals. While aerosols/particulates over the U.S. were dramatically decreasing, the U.S. surface temperatures were falling as shown in the chart on the right.
The lack of warming due to increased aerosols is regurgitated lameness that "climate scientists" always attempt to fall back on when actual empirical evidence invalidates the AGW hypothesis. It's more bogus science from the 'Twilight Zone' of the climate science establishment.
Read here. Both China and India pump a lot of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere but that's not the principal cause for the Himalaya glaciers/snow melting. The real culprit is soot (black carbon), a huge and deadly air pollutant.
Instead of focusing on the atmospheric levels of the tiny, trace gas CO2, the U.S. should be helping the Asian countries with technology and science to conquer the soot menace.
"Kopacz et al. used a global chemical transport model to identify the location from which the BC arriving at a variety of locations in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau originates, after which they calculated its direct and snow-albedo radiative forcings...they say that observations of black carbon (BC) content in snow "show a rapidly increasing trend,"..."emissions from northern India and central China contribute the majority of BC to the Himalayas," and that "the Tibetan Plateau receives most BC from western and central China, as well as from India, Nepal, the Middle East, Pakistan and other countries."" [Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics]
Read here. Soot (black carbon) is the definitive biofuel air pollutant that is known to cause illness and premature death for millions. It is known to cause a major percentage (90%) of Arctic ice melting. It is known by scientists to cause approximately 50% of global warming. And yet another study, by Kaspari et al., confirms from an analysis of Mt. Everest ice cores what has been documented before: biofuel soot is known to be melting the Himalayan glaciers and will threaten the water supplies of billions.
"The authors write that "black carbon (BC, the absorbing component of soot) produced by the incomplete combustion of biomass, coal and diesel fuels can significantly contribute to climate change by altering the earth's radiative balance,"....." but that in spite of these facts, BC still remains "one of the largest sources of uncertainty in analyses of climate change.".....developed a high-resolution BC record spanning the period AD 1860-2000 from a Mt. Everest ice core extracted from the East Rongbuk glacier.....seven scientists determined that "BC concentrations from 1975-2000 relative to 1860-1975 have increased approximately threefold, indicating that BC from anthropogenic sources is being transported to high elevation regions of the Himalaya.....say their findings suggest that "a reduction in BC emissions may be an effective means to reduce the effect of absorbing impurities on snow albedo and melt, which affects Himalayan glaciers and the availability of water resources in major Asian rivers."" [Kaspari, S.D., Schwikowski, M., Gysel, M., Flanner, M.G., Kang, S., Hou, S. and Mayewski, P.A. 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. First, Obama somehow failed to stop real global warming and climate change winter snowstorms in their tracks, then he failed to close Guantanamo terrorist prison as promised, and now he jumps with two large NCAA-sized feet onto the war-monger bandwagon.....ya think Moveon.org, George Soros, the Huffington Post, the NT Times and your typical leftist feel just a wee bit betrayed.....ain't it grand! It's going to be interesting reading/viewing the forthcoming leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat rationalizations for Bush's Obama's war-mongering.
Rumored future portrait of Obama by former "hope & change" loyalists.
Read here. As the IPCC's quest for the holy grail of reduced CO2 has assumed the feeling of a Monty Python movie, the UN is now turning its focus on other human factors that likely affect global temperatures, including black soot. Besides changing the focus, this new UN study makes an amazing admission of CO2-mitigation futility:
"A fairly aggressive strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions under current reduction scenarios "does little to mitigate warming over the next 20 to 30 years," the study said. With carbon dioxide reductions alone, global temperatures are still projected to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 over pre-industrial levels."
It would appear the UN's 'killer CO2' has now officially become the new 'killer bunny'..."runaway, runaway, runaway!"...To where though? Hollywood? Perfect.
Although it has taken the UN several decades and hundreds of billions of wasted CO2 climate research funding, at least they are now turning their sights on human climate influences, such as black soot, that have a legitimate expectation of being controlled and reduced, without devastating the global economy.
Read here. As European greens and government policymakers are frolicking and polluting at Cancun's paradise resorts for two weeks, their countries' soot emissions are destroying the Himalayan glaciers and drinking water of billions of people. Instead of fixing the black carbon (soot) pollution they are responsible for, the EU activists continue to rail about the atmospheric trace gas CO2, which, by the way, doesn't melt glaciers, sea ice or polar ice sheet caps.
There are multiple studies, including this latest article, that point to soot as a prime culprit in climate warming and ice melting.
"“….Angela Marinoni of the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate in Bologna explained to an audience at the 2nd Third Pole Environment Workshop in Kathmandu on October 27th, the high Himalayas are also under an onslaught from this sort of pollution. Even at altitudes above 5,000 metres (16,400 feet), soot is widespread. And when it lands on glaciers it accelerates their melting.....By analysing atmospheric circulation patterns, Dr Marinoni and her colleagues found that winds could bring soot and dust from as far away as Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. And if that were not bad enough, the Himalayan valleys act as chimneys, pumping pollutants from the Indian plains to the mountain peaks. Dr Marinoni estimates that the combined effect of this crud could reduce the glaciers’ ability to reflect light by 2-5% and increase the amount of melting by 12-34%."
Read here. Hysterical global warming alarmists keep claiming that polar sea ice melt is due to increasing human CO2 emissions. This is extreme wishful thinking on their part since recent research finds black soot as being the major factor for polar sea ice loss. h/t: Steve Goddard
"Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land.....But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming....."A surprisingly large temperature response is caused by a surprisingly small amount of impurities in snow in polar regions."....."When soot is there it heats the snow. It acts like a little toaster oven."....."Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Zender says. "The climate is more responsive to this than [to] anything else we know.""
Read here. Okay, okay....the title should read 50% of east Europe's warming is due to cleaner air, and for the record, up to 20% of western Europe's warming is due to the same. Literally, the EU's own clean air regulations and controls have caused major warming, without the help of CO2. And, the result will be less warming in the future since there is less pollution to clean from the skies.
"Over Europe, the marked solar radiation increase since the 1980s is thought to have contributed to the observed large continental warming.....Statistically linking local visibility changes with temperature variations, we estimate that the reduction in low-visibility conditions could have contributed on average to about 10–20% of Europe’s recent daytime warming and to about 50% of eastern European warming. Large improvements in air quality and visibility already achieved in Europe over the past decades may mean that future reductions in the frequency of low-visibility events will be limited, possibly leading to less rapid regional warming.”"
The other major conclusion from this study is that climate models are worthless - a topic we've visited often.
"Unfortunately, current regional climate models are probably not ready to reproduce the physics underlying these trends.....As yet, state-of-the-art regional aerosol models have been shown not to be able to simulate with sufficient skill the total aerosol burden over Europe. Simulating trends in low-visibility phenomena, and their impact on climate, therefore remains an open challenge for models."
Read here, here and here. It is common knowledge that the inhalation of black soot particles kill hundreds of thousands of individuals each year. It is common knowledge that black soot from combustion is a major contributor to global warming and Arctic area ice/tundra melting/thawing. It is common knowledge that reducing the production of black soot is considered easier and less painful than reducing human-based CO2 emissions. Yet the IPCC and politicians have done nothing to solve the huge black soot global problem(s) that would be so beneficial to humans and the environment. Why?
The reality as to 'why' is fairly clear. Black soot reduction neither enriches nor empowers. Understand the reality: wealthy individuals, such as Al Gore and George Soros, seek to immensely enrich themselves via various CO2 'cap and trade' schemes; in a similar vein, organizations such as the UN and the EU hoped to expand their power and control over individuals via increased CO2 regulations and emissions taxation. This combination of greedy carbon-barons and rapacious non-sovereign entities presented the perfect storm that kept the real black soot problems of death and warming from being solved.
"Compared to the larger, longer term task of getting greenhouse-gas pollution under control, limiting soot wouldn’t be hard. Unlike new energy technology and profound changes in lifestyle, the tools — exhaust filters, clean-burning stoves — already exist.....Soot has such a strong climate effect, but it has a lifetime in the atmosphere of just a few weeks. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years. If you totally stop CO2 emissions today, the Arctic will still be totally melted.....If soot pollution is immediately curtailed, “the reductions start to occur pretty much right away. Within months, you’ll start seeing temperature differences.” According to Jacobson, climate policymakers have paid little attention to soot. “There are international efforts to limit greenhouse gases, but they completely ignore soot as something to control from a climate perspective,”.....The draft international climate treaty negotiated last year in Copenhagen doesn’t contain soot-specific provisions."
Read here. Scientists know that atmospheric aerosols including dust, secondary organic material from terrestrial biogenic emissions, carbonaceous particles from wildfires, and sulphate from marine phytoplankton dimethyl sulphide emissions have a significant impact on the climate. A group of researchers find that the climate feedback from these type of aerosols is often the opposite of greenhouse gases but are not well researched, leading to their exclusion from climate models.
"...they state that these aerosols "have a significant effect on many components of the Earth system, such as the atmospheric radiative balance and photosynthetically available radiation entering the biosphere, the supply of nutrients to the ocean, and the albedo of snow and ice.....The seven scientists report that "the number of drivers of change is very large and the various systems are strongly coupled," noting that "there have therefore been very few studies that integrate the various effects to estimate climate feedback factors." Nevertheless, they say that "available observations and model studies suggest that the regional radiative perturbations are potentially several Watts per square meter..... And, more often than not, the aerosol-induced perturbations are of the opposite sign of those produced by CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases.....arriving at the ultimate conclusion that "the level of scientific understanding of the climate drivers, interactions and impacts is very low" in this particular realm of pertinent science."
Read here. Western governments have been battling real air pollution for decades with much success. So, when they decided to pour billions into climate research and climate models, they for some reason chose not to focus on the impact of aerosol pollution (e.g. black soot). Per new research out of NASA, that decision was dumb - aerosols chemically react with greenhouse gases causing even more warming but climate models are oblivious to that science fact.
"The IPCC's modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used
for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model
results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has
caused climate scientists' assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol
particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in
previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to
the climate catastrophists' computer generated apocalyptic fantasies....This would imply that if aerosols—black carbon in particular—were
reduced we should see global cooling. And this is using the IPCC values
for CO2 sensitivity. So much for the potency of CO2 as the major driver of climate change."
Read here. A critical climate forcing, atmospheric aerosols, is analyzed by six NASA researchers using satellite technology. Aerosols have huge impact on climate, from absorbing energy to reflecting sunlight. For climate models to function as planned, it necessitates a full understanding of aerosols interactions. The researchers found the following, which indicates a major climate model and assessment weakness:
"because of the global nature of aerosol climate forcings, satellite observations have been and will be an indispensable
[our italics] source of information about aerosol characteristics for
use in various assessments of climate and climate change,"...."our new results suggest that the
current knowledge of the global distribution of the AOT [aerosol optical thickness] and,
especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics remains
Read here. Based on new peer-reviewed research, the dust storms that the Chad government refuses to manage and control is wreaking climate havoc on the rest of the world. Combine these dust storms with the amount of black carbon soot the African populace throws up in the atmosphere, it becomes obvious that the majority of African nations pose a serious global threat to humanity. Africa and its leaders need to be held accountable at Copenhagen!
Read here. Scientists nowknow that soot (black carbon) is a huge contributor to global warming, climate change, and Arctic melting, plus causing some 1.5 million+ deaths per year. Why won't the politicians and bureaucrats solve this easily solvable, dirty problem? It would seem they can't figure out how to tax soot in order to generate tax revenues for themselves.
Cleaning up the global soot problem provides any U.S senator with an opportunity to lead and excel. Will any senator do so? Nope. Senators are too pre-occupied with tax revenues from CO2 emissions to make a real humanitarian difference, unfortunately.
Read here, here, here, here, and here. Climate alarmists and green organizations have fabricated stories about Himalayan glaciers melting due to human CO2 in order to raise contributors' donations. Like all other global warming and climate change hysterical claims, the actual science and truth point to culprits other than CO2.
Read here. Black carbon emissions (soot) is an actual killer, unlike CO2 emissions. Soot causes significant global warming, it melts arctic sea and even thaws frozen tundra. Fixing the black carbon problem first, instead of CO2, should be the primary policy objective of UN and governments. Won't happen though because it's not a big revenue generator and Al Gore didn't make a movie about it.
Read here, here, and here. In a study published in 2005, Hansen finds that soot is Arctic ice melt culprit, not CO2; a new study in Science finds that soot aerosol particles have had a much larger impact on global warming; and, an earlier NASA 2009 NASA study revealed soot as principal warming factor for Arctic.