The IPCC's climate models have been noteworthy for their unfettered pattern of prediction failure, misleading policymakers and taxpayers alike regarding global warming...predictably, the pattern of failure continues in 2014.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Multi-billions have been invested into climate science, with a special emphasis on climate models.
Despite the massive expenditures, the climate models utilized by the IPCC continue to be ginormous failures for the purpose of prediction.
The adjacent chart depicts this continuing pattern of failure by comparing the 3-year average of observed temperatures (HadCRUT4) versus the output of state-of-the-art CMIP5 models. The dataset plots reflect the most current values through June 2014.
The chart is also a testament to the unmitigated disaster of basing computer models almost exclusively on the influence of trace atmospheric gas CO2 instead of the natural climate cycles and oscillations that dominate the world of climate reality.
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.
The frigid tropical hotspot continues to be a massive embarrassment to the CAGW faithful, and more importantly, the climate modelers...their prediction of a runaway tipping point in the atmosphere that would produce Venus-like temperatures is a classic example of herd-style failure by the consensus algorithms....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Two recent studies demonstrate the absolute futility of policymakers listening to climate modelers (and their billion dollar climate models) who continually predict climate calamities - a prediction record with zero successes.
The first peer reviewed study determines that today's climate models will never be able to predict the climate. Essentially, climate models assume linear climate relationships yet the real-world climate is non-linear and chaotic - defying intermediate and long-term predictive "expertise" with predictable regularity.
The second study clearly documents the abysmal prediction failure foisted on the public and politicians by the climate modelers. The climate models have long predicted a tropical hotspot in the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions; but actual scientific research reveals that the feared, mythical, runaway "tipping point" hotspot remains non-existent.
The hotspot tipping point, per the climate modelers, is supposedly in the process of turning Earth's atmosphere into a Venus replica, making Earth uninhabitable. But is that realistically happening?
The adjacent chart provides the indisputable, empirical evidence to answer that question unequivocally - NO!
The chart's red column is the Venus atmosphere's temperature at the 10km altitude. A conservative estimated temperature is still an incredibly hot 350°C.
In contrast, the chart's dark blueish columns show the Earth's atmosphere at the same altitude is an incredibly frigid temperature of minus 75C degrees. Yes, our tropical atmosphere is some 425 degrees colder.
Ahem....what freaking Venus-like tropical hotspot?! IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Of course, the climate moderlers stuck-on-stupid-Venus, don't mention this amazingly obvious climate fact. Instead, they focus on how Earth's tropical atomosphere is "accelerating" towards a Venus-like hotspot tipping point.
Accelerating? Barely creeping at a glacial pace would be more accurate.
Examine the chart closely. Since the beginning of the 1980's, humanity has poured some 860 billion CO2 tonnes into the atmosphere; atmospheric CO2 levels keep climbing (see yellow boxes); yet, the average tropical atmospheric temperature has essentially not budged (see red dotted baseline) over 3+ decades of modern consumer/industrial human emissions.
The solution to climate science reality and better policy? 'TRUST NO ONE CLIMATE MODEL' should be stamped on every CO2-centric climate model prediction and report that is handed to politicians and policymakers.
Then this type of anti-science insanity preached by the climate modelers would finally be D.O.A., never again to poison a public scientific debate with "runaway" catastrophic climate absurdities.
Note: Source of approximate 10km Venus temperature; source of approximate Earth's troposphere temperature; source of approximate tropical latitude troposphere temperatures; source of lower tropical atmosphere temperature change since 1979; source of total CO2 emission tonnes since 1979; source of peak CO2 ppm levels for each decade.
Depending on which climate alarmist "expert" you listen to, be it Al Gore, Tom Steyer, Obama, John Holdren or Michael Mann, each claims that the U.S. is suffering from CO2-caused extreme climate change...big problem though, NOAA empirical measurements of precipitation (snow and rainfall) prove those claims are nothing but blatant, political anti-science liesfalsehoods exaggerations.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
A prior 'C3' article documented the current normality of extreme drought across the globe.
With that said, the western U.S. is currently experiencing a very bad drought. If it's the start of another 200-year mega-drought, which plagued the area prior to the 1700's, there will be some very serious problems.
But for the entire U.S., NOAA reports that recent precipitation levels are normal - extreme high or low precipitation levels are not the norm.
The chart on the left is a plot of NOAA monthly measurements of precipitation since 1895, through June 2014. (NOAA dataset source) The black dots represent the moving 5-year (60-month) average of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The dark blue curve is the simple 60-month moving average of precipitation; the red line denotes the average monthly rainfall over the 1,434 months. As can be seen, the moving average is just about parked on top of the overall average - the declared current climate extremes purported by alarmists do not exist for the U.S.(nor for the globe as the prior article pointed out).
The total lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15+ years is completely counter to the CO2-based CAGW hypothesis that alarmists believe in fervently.
And what about other climate change "extremes" they hypothesize - well, the charts tell the real science story.
On this article's chart, the past extremes have been denoted (see color dots). Clearly, weather extremes can happen on a monthly basis, but they are rare, with no apparent association to CO2. Extended extreme precipitation levels over decades are literally non-existent in the NOAA climate record database.
Those Stubborn Facts: U.S. climate extremes of excess/minimal precipitation (rainfall and snow) are not evident in the recent climate record. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 causes modern precipitation extremes does not hold water, so to speak.
The latest research is conclusive, and confirms previous studies from multiple authors.
===>"The absence of trends in normalized disaster burden indicators appears to be largely consistent with the absence of trends in extreme weather events. This conclusion is more qualitative for the number of people killed. As a consequence, vulnerability is also largely stable over the period of analysis."
H/T: Roger Pielke Jr
For most CAGW skeptics, this finding is not a surprise since skeptics tend to be much more knowledgeable about past weather disasters. Previous weather disasters from the early 20th century were worse in many cases, and fully documented by the mainstream press at the time.
Conclusion: Recent weather events cannot be attributed to human CO2 emissions, nor the ongoing climate change that world is experiencing. In addition, modern climate change has not revealed itself to be "extreme." Thus, no correlation between disasters and the more recent non-extreme climate change.
Additional severe weather/disaster/climate articles.
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.
An analysis of NOAA's U.S. temperature dataset confirms the existence of fake climate warming that overstates actual warming by considerable amount...documentation and surprising revelations support the growing concerns by critics that U.S. climate scientists are driven by a non-science agenda.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Government bureaucrats and scientists have not exactly gone out of their way to publicize the growing use of estimated temperatures, instead of reality - actual temperature measurements.
For good reason.
Based on an examination by independent analysts, after 1990 the U.S. climate agencies chose to start replacing real-world measurements with entirely fabricated (i.e. "estimated") numbers.
Per the top chart on the left, utilization of estimated temperatures is now approaching 40%.
So, what's the problem with using NOAA's fake temperatures instead of real-world temperature measurements?
The bottom graph on the left explains the problem. The estimated temperatures produce a much greater warming trend then the actual temperature measurements.
By using estimates, government officials are able to claim bogus climate warming statistics in order to advance the scary talking points of catastrophic global warming and extreme climate change.
Deception is as simple as that, yet can be effective propaganda.
'Climate Depot' recently highlighted a ludicrous NY Daily News editorial that is the typical fear-mongering pushed by establishment elites, eargerly published by the mainstream press in regards to global warming and climate change...the editorial's commentary of "while the planet is burning" is an opinion held by a bunch of spoiled, wealthy cronies who have served their country dishonorably by ruining the American dream for future generations and, btw, continue to propose self-serving polices that will make themselves even richer...hmmm..., or instead, maybe they really are just a bunch of scientific illiterate elites who can't be bothered with those inconvenient facts, no?.....
(click on images to enlarge)
As the above paragraph suggests, it's easy to throw out rhetorical bombast in response to over-the-top CAGW doomsday B.S. - especially if the bombast is directed at wealthy elites' galactically-sized hypocrisy and crony-capitalist climate change endeavors.
By now, per the recent polling of Americans (here and here), you'd guess that the GWNs would finally forsake the rhetorical excesses as being a spectacular failed public relations campaign, but apparently not, if the NY Daily News is any indication.
Putting the bombast aside, let's continue with the analysis of those inconvenient global warming and climate change facts.
Recently, 'C3' published a few articles about the actual temperature change experienced across the globe. The key word is 'change.'
When specific temperature 'change' is examined, does it exhibit characteristics deserving of the establishment elites' commonly used fear-mongering qualifiers? Those are qualifiers meant to scare purposefully, such as: accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable, incontrovertible and etc. Or, as in the case of the wordy wordsmith elites at the NY Daily News, "while the planet burns."
The above chart on the left (Fig. A) is from this 'C3' article, which examines the 6-month absolute temperature changes derived from the state-of-the-art satellite measurement technology. Clearly, the empirical 6-month temperature changes since 1979 do not exhibit characteristics equal to the fear-monger qualifiers, let alone the hysterical, anti-science bullshît of "planet burning."
But wait.....what if the planet really was burning, per the elites' propaganda? What would accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal temperature change look like?
Well, that would be the fabricated 6-month change chart on the right (Fig. B). Using the same time period since 1979, the temperature changes plotted represent the simulated monthly temperature anomalies increasing every single month by just a tiny amount. As a result, the 6-month temperature change curve becomes a fevered-planet exponential.
That's the face of frightening global warming - an exponential precursor to the figurative "burning planet." But the real world intrudes as Fig. A is not that precursor - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
(Tip: If the actual climate temperatures ever produced a similar exponential 6-month, or a 36-month, a 60-month, a 120-month or a 180-month temperature change chart as Fig. B, then it's time for all good skeptics to move their petro-dollar funded haciendas to tropical Antarctica.)
Now, obviously, the two above charts look entirely different. And if the climate is producing accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible global warming (i.e. "planet burning") then the 6-month change chart on the right would be reality.
But the chart on the right is not reality - the chart on the left is, which presents a fairly constant up/down of temperature change, essentially negating opposing extremes. That's how the natural climate works in regards to both short-term and long-term temperature changes.
BTW, speaking of lack of extremes...to reinforce what climate reality truly is, depending on your preferred temperature dataset, there has been a non-extreme, slight global cooling trend, from a minimum of 9+ years to 17+ years . This is not some hidden science artifact that only the climate guru-clerics know about. This has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed journals and blogs for the last few years.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, the establishment's elites and mainstream media continue to publish "burning planet" falsehoods. Being completely divorced from the known climate science facts has (thank goodness) seriously undercut their credibility and trustworthiness.
Conclusions: One, the world is not "burning," with all the empirical science pointing to a globe that is experiencing a very, very modest warmingcoolingwarming cooling. Two, "liar, liar, pants on fire" doesn't quite describe the anti-science, the anti-empirical denialism, the overall dishonesty and crony-malfeasance the elites and wealthy pursue to enrich themselves by impoverishing the rest of the world.
The over-the-top predictions of catastrophic climate disaster from proponents of CAGW have become a public relations disaster for the establishment science community...the constant hyperbole about extreme climate change due to abrupt, accelerating and unequivocal global warming turns out to be without empirical, scientific merit, as the UK's recognized gold-standard global temperature dataset confirms....
(click on image to enlarge)
The lack of major hurricanes making direct landfall on the continental U.S. over the last 8+ years is a classic example of extreme climate change not happening as predicted.
Now, add to that the complete disappearance of statistically significant global warming - for the UK's HadCRUT4 there has been no statistically significant warming since October 1996; and for the RSS global atmosphere dataset, it has been since November 1992 - and one then begins to wonder about the incompetence of elite science.
The absence of climate significant warming by itself pretty much confirms that extreme climate change is a non-issue, deserving little priority and resources.
But, there is another view of extreme climate change that can be examined to ascertain whether it has become a modern era problem or not. This can be accomplished by examining simple 10-year absolute change events for global temperatures, both positive and negative.
By identifying the largest 20 warming events and 20 largest cooling events since 1850, the most extreme 2% of temperature swings can be placed in chronological significance. (This identification is best done with the IPCC's gold-standard, the UK's HadCRUT4 monthly dataset, which stretches back to 1850.)
The charts above provide the identification of these extreme, outlier temperature swings. (The May 2014 HC4 dataset contains 1,973 monthly observations from which 1,853 moving 10-year absolute change calculations can be derived.)
As is evident from the empirical data, the vast majority of extreme temperature swings (both warming and cooling) occur prior to 1960. Also, the charts' purple linear trend lines indicate that the extremes are shrinking (getting smaller, if you prefer) over time.
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions have not caused the predicted abrupt, accelerating and unequivocal global warming during the modern era, as all of the above scientific evidence attests. In addition, the lack of extreme climate change disasters and shrinking temperature swings, in relation to the past, actually indicate there may be an inverse relationship with growing CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels.
Now that would truly be mind-boggling, and help explain why "consensus" scientists are so befuddled and at a loss. Of course, stranger things have happened, such as the recent admission by consensus establishment science that they have been horribly wrong (for three decades, yikes!) about dietary cholesterol and saturated fat causing heart disease.
However, with all the above stated, this does not mean that climate change is not happening; that human activities have no influence on weather and climate; nor that global warming won't occur in the near future.
Note: UK's HadCRUT4 2014 satellite dataset used in Excel to calculate 10-year absolute (i.e. arithmetic difference) temperature changes and linear trends for above charts. 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.
Are humans turning Earth into another Venus, an inhabitable planet with temperatures hotter than your Weber grill on the 4th of July? Well...when the empirical dots are connected the scary Venus fate for Earth goes poof....
(click on chart to enlarge)
In a previous post, empirical observations documented the lack of both short-term and long-term warming of the atmosphere.
Another approach to assessing the atmosphere's temperature change is to examine the 10-year changes in the lower troposphere. The graph on the left plots such changes.
Using a satellite dataset that contains 426 monthly temperature measurements, 306 moving 10-year changes can be calculated. This graph plots those 306 data-points (the proverbial 'dots'), plus the cumulative growth in CO2 levels over the same period.
Visually, it is obvious the 10-year temperature changes were dominated by increasing values up till the early 2000's. After that, the 10-year changes decreased consistently, turning from positive to negative. The graph depicts the global atmosphere actually cooling over recent time.
The long increase in 10-year temperature change, and then its subsequent decrease, is confirmed by both the 3-year simple average curve (aqua) and the fitted trend curve (6th order polynomial).
The pale green curve (another fitted trend curve, 6th order) represents the unabated, relentless cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Conclusion: Earth is not turning into Venus. The experts' predictions that human CO2 emissions would turn Earth's atmosphere into a simmering Venus lookalike, resulting in "boiling" oceans, is now substantiated as a crackpot, global warming bogosity - pure anti-science alarmism that was promulgated by establishment science.
Does the above mean that Earth's atmosphere will never warm again? Nope, it will indeed continue to have phases of warming and cooling just as it did in the past, sans Venus conditions, though.....because that is what climates do, just naturally.
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used in Excel to calculate 10-year temperature changes. fitted trends and 3-year average in the 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.
The just releasedBP Statistical Review includes an updated historical record of CO2 emissions across the world, through 2013.
While China's CO2 emissions have almost tripled since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the U.S. emissions have decreased about 2%.
That U.S. reduction actually is superior to all the world's major regions and entities, as identified by the BP research report. This U.S. reduction (see adjacent chart) took place even though the U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign the 'Protocol.'
With that said, any CO2 emission reduction by the U.S. is being immediately offset by the huge increases happening in other parts of the world. As a result, neither U.S. citizens, nor the world's, are benefiting from any U.S. CO2 reduction efforts.
To make the U.S. CO2 reduction aspirations even more bleak, if America could slash its emissions by 50% for each of the next 85 years, the net impact on global temperatures by 2100AD, at best, might be all of a measly -0.09°C.
That type of impact would require U.S. emissions to drop by some 3 billion metric tonnes per year, which based on today's technology, would likely amount to at least an annual $1 trillion expense (assumes a ludicrously low $400 per tonne cost to immediately replace all the lost fossil fuel utilization, needed new infrastructure, replacement transportation vehicles and g*d knows what else to survive).
Whether its impact is viewed from a short-term or long-term perspective, the CO2 trace gas has had little, if any, influence on the atmosphere's temperatures...satellite measurements provide the proof that the CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis is not climate reality..... (follow up article is here)
(click on chart to enlarge)
It has been predicted by the climate "experts" that human CO2 emissions would cause the world's atmosphere to warm dangerously, producing catastrophic, world-ending climate disasters.
Some 30+ years later, the advanced satellites circling the globe, 24/7, provide the empirical evidence that the "expert" predictions were of no substance, nor merit.
The adjoining graph is a plot of short-term temperature changes since 1979, along with the cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. Specifically, the 6-month temperature changes show little, if any, impact from the continuous growth of the atmospheric trace gas, CO2. [Clarification: chart's temperature plot is a moving, full 6-month temperature difference calculated from global RSS monthly anomalies, currently 426 anomalies in dataset]
In fact, the overall trend (aqua line) of 6-month changes is actually negative - an indication that abrupt, accelerating dangerous global warming of the atmosphere is non-existent. [Clarification: Aqua line is a linear trend produced by Excel]
Now, that is the short-term. What about the long-term?
A recent study by a group of pro-catastrophic global warming scientists1 determined that the human CO2 warming influence on atmosphere temperatures would be obvious over 17-years of satellite measurements. These are the scientists who claim we have experienced catastrophic global warming, with world climate disasters being imminent.
And what has happened, over this long-term span specified by these scientists?
Over the last 204 months (that's 17 years through June 2014), the atmosphere temperatures have actually exhibited a global cooling trend, not warming. The per century trend is only a -0.36°C. Despite this small number, it still represents a cooling trend, opposite of consensus predictions.
Whether short or long-term, the state-of-the-art empirical satellite evidence is not only obvious, it is both climate and statistically significant: CO2 emissions have not had a significant influence (warming or cooling) on atmospheric temperatures.For objective science, this means that the CO2-centric anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is essentially invalidated, as it is currently understood.
(1) Study. Scientists involved: Ben D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, Tim M. L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, Tom R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, F. J. Wentz
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used (finally!...updated with RSS June 2014 Excel spreadsheet), including 6-month temperature changes and Excel linear trend in the 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.
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 political agenda of "global warming" is so important to government-sponsored scientists that massive fabrication of temperature warming is required to convince policymakers and the media.
The latest analysis (see graph) reveals the extent to which this temperature fabrication goes.
Although the actual climate records' empirical evidence shows essentially a flat temperature trend for the U.S. since 1985, NOAA has added warming "adjustments" to the historical empirical database to create a false warming trend of 1.5°F per century.
As this analysis indicates, consensus corruption of empirical science by U.S. scientists is active and robust, done with a seemingly obvious intent to deceive.
This is also true for the continental U.S. temperatures during the 21st century, though, with an obvious difference. As the adjacent chart reveals, the U.S. temperatures exhibit an actual cooling trend - actually opposite of the rapid, dangerous, "scorching" climate that the White House and some propagandistsliars journalists report.
Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2°F per century rate.
It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient.
Note: Excel used to produce chart, averages and linear trend. NOAA temperature dataset used can be downloaded from this site.
Mother Jones magazine and Chris Mooney provide further proof that the alarmism of greens and the fringe left/progressive/liberal extreme of American politics is a cornucopia of anti-science, falsehoods and misrepresentation...Catastrophic Global Warming Derangement Syndrome (CGWDS) victims have become a national embarrassment and tragedy, no?.....
(click on top images left #1 & right #2 to enlarge)
(click on bottom images left #3 & right #4 to enlarge)
Actual climate science and empirical evidence has long been the enemy of the green/left/Democrat consortium being funded by Obama's crony-donor billionaire friends. A classic example of their littering the editing floor with scientific truth can be found in this recentMother Jones article.
The top/left 'image #1' comes straight from the 'MJ' article and it immediately sets off one's B.S. detector.
Vast portions of the U.S. have just made it through a brutal winter and a cold, wet spring, yet Mother Jones is talking global warming "scorching"? In fact, after 30 years of gigantic CO2 emissions, the first four months of 2014 temperatures in the U.S. were, on average, -0.26 degree lower than those of January, February, March and April during 1984.
Yep, 30 years later the U.S. was cooler - as pseudo-journalist Chris Mooney would say: "It's about our scarcely recognizable present"
In determining where this Mother Jones pile of B.S. was leading, a closer scrutiny of the 'image #1' reveals that it is a temperature map for the last 22 years.
Whoa, 22 years!? WTF?
Honestly, what objective, impartial person interested in the empirical-based science would pick a 22-year snapshot as the sole climate representation of the U.S. with no other context? What major publication would publish such a temperature map without at least also showing what has happened to U.S temperatures since 1996?
Can you quickly say "amazingly, ludicrous, cherry-picking misinformation" three times in a row? It's safe to say Chris Mooney and Mother Jones can.
So, what would cause those brainy "elites," who suffer from an obvious CGWDS affliction, to basically misrepresent the climate as it is being experienced today, but instead focus on a specific 22-year period? Why not present the readers with multiple-period maps and graphs that provides a contextual full picture of reality?
Well, image #2 (top/right) provides the ready answer to their ludicrous cherry-picking deception.
Turns out that the 22-year period ending March 2014 had the highest per century rate of U.S. warming when analyzing multiple time periods. Yet, as the American public is well aware, the previous U.S. warming trend that generated that unique 22-year peak has since morphed into a cooling phase since 1996 - ahem...now look at all those negative blue bars in image #2 starting with the last 18 years.
Adding even more proof that the U.S. is not suffering from "scorching" global warming deception, images #3 and #4 reveal NOAA's climate reality for 1992 (22 years ago) and 2014, respectively.
How about that! NOAA, the principal U.S. climate research agency, reports that the U.S. recently experienced an actual cooler climate than that of 1992 (22 years ago).
Gee, why would Chris Mooney and Mother Jones leave important empirical evidence context like this out of their "scorching" article? Hmmm...makes one wonder if they purposefully want their readers to think they are liars; or maybe they think the readers of 'MJ' are just incredibly gullible and/or common sense stupid. Who knows?
For additional scientific context missing in the Mooney climate-doomsday article, go here, here, here, here and here.
Oh...and those "Seven Scary Facts About The Global Left & Greens":
1. they start with the initial bullshÎt;
2. then they sprinkle some more bullshÎt here and there and everywhere;
3. they advance their agenda by rapidly accelerating the bullshÎt spreading with over-the-top hyperbole;
4. they then deny their bullshÎttÎng when all the scary predictions fail;
5. then they claim they were misunderstood and really did not mean their previous bullshÎt to be literal;
6. they then introduce multiple new theories as to why some new bullshÎt should be believed, ignoring the fact all their previous bullshÎt was completely wrong;
and #7, hey, they finally state that you're a racist, Gaia-hating, homophobic, paid-by-the-Koch-brothers denier if you no longer believe all of their anti-science, doomsday bullshÎt.
Indeed, it's never ending CGWDS bullshÎt combined with crazy-person denial - similar to the famed Black Knight's relentless denial, despite his obvious and indisputable shortcomings.
If wild-assed guesses and purposeful doomsday, fear-mongering claims are the "new science" gold standard, then Obama's 'National Climate Assessment' report must be a winner, no?.....well, it's at least deserving of 5-Pinoccio gold stars for anti-science propaganda...
(click on image to enlarge)
The 2014 climate-doomsday assessment report recently issued by the White House and Democrat cronies has not been well received by actual climate scientists.
The report is a compilation of every scary climate prophecy imaginable, most of which are highly speculative with little, if any, likelihood of happening.
Ahem.....yes, Virginia, you are more likely of being struck by lightening exactly between the eyeballs than suffering through any of the Democrats' climate doomsday scenarios.
Besides the White House's extreme scare-mongering, the report's credibility is also D.O.A. due to its blatant falsehood regarding "CO2-caused" warming of the globe and the U.S.
===> "The government’s newest national assessment of climate change declares that increased global warming is affecting every part of the United States."
From a vast array of empirical reports (here and here), recent research and widely disseminated media reports, it has been well verified that the "expert" predicted accelerating freight train of dangerous global warming has been stopped cold in its tracks.
Obama's assessment: it completely ignores this major climate reality that so dramatically differs from the previous global warming alarmism speculations.
And the actual scientific truth about global temperature change is not difficult to determine, since all it takes to analyze temperatures is to download the NOAA/NASA satellite temperature datasets and then plot the measurements using Microsoft Excel.
That is what has been done in producing the accompanying charts.
The top graph plots the changes in tropical oceans (a latitude range of -20 to +20); the tropical atmosphere (a latitude range of -20 to +20); and the continental U.S.
Obviously, since 1996, the last 18 years has witnessed its normal wide variation in temperature swings but the overall linear trends are cooling for all three datasets, NOT WARMING as predicted.
The bottom chart represents the moving 5-year averages of all three of the same datasets, plus the moving 5-year average of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm). Clearly, the huge growth in CO2 levels has had zero global warming impact on the 5-year temperature change over the last 18 years, contrary to the Democrats' "consensus" predictions.
This actual empirical evidence devastates the White House claim that Earth is becoming Venus-like, where CO2 causes the tropical atmosphere to develop incredible hotspots, which then produces a boiling-off of sea water, starting with the tropical oceans. As can be seen here, this is the entire "scientific" basis of the Democrats' extreme climate change, doomsday predictions.
Doomsday predictions that do not comport with any known climate reality on Earth (again, view above graphs).
Unfortunately, reality has not kept this White House from misleading Americans on a wide range of issues, including Obamacare; the Benghazi terrorism attack; the IRS politicization; the NSA's illegal spying on Americans; the Operation 'Fast & Furious' fiasco; and etc.
Thus, Obama's climate assessment report utilizes the same lie-at-all-costs tactics as the previous instances. This report is just another attempt to bamboozle the public.
"5 reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming: OVERREACH, HYPOCRISY, AGENDA-DRIVEN, UNILATERAL, NOT CREDIBLE" - that's how the Washington Post assesses Obama's assessment.
And of course, when this latest fear-report fails to convince the public, the liberals' anti-science approach will then embrace other tried and true "professional" tactics - like this.
Note: Yes, you too can do your own empirical analysis - download datasets used in Excel to produce above charts, linear trends and moving averages. Btw, U.S. April anomaly used was an estimate (included in the download). Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. 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 huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.
Whether the "experts" are the IPCC's climate models or associated scientists, their climate predictions for Northern Hemisphere snow extent, i.e., square kilometer coverage, have been robustly wrong...
(click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC has become globally infamous for their atrocious climate change, global warming predictions (read brief summary).
There are multiple examples of the up-to-date empirical evidence confirming that the IPCC's doomsday climate predictions are without merit - here, here, here and here are just a few examples.
And at the close of March 2014, it is now possible to compare the latest empirical evidence versus the IPCC "expert" prediction that human CO2 emissions would severely reduce snow coverage across the Northern Hemisphere during winter months (December, January, February and March).
As this accompanying chart obviously indicates, snow extent has actually increased over the short term (see 3-year average curve); and since the beginning of the dataset, winter snows have ranged within a narrow band.
During any given year's winter, there are periods of extremely large snow extent, soon to be followed by low extremes. This natural variation occurs despite the growing surge of CO2 emissions, as denoted by the methodically increasing black step-curve.
For many regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the past several winters since 2007 have witnessed brutal winters of extreme snow and cold, which the upsurge of the chart's 3-year average curve corroborates. As additional corraboration, there is the actual global sea ice growth that also mocks the "expert" IPCC predictions.
Addtional severe-weather articles and charts. Chronological list of severe weather/climate events.
Note: Datasets used to plot Excel chart: snow and CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Like the UN, the IPCC is a political organization that seemingly has a primary objective of misleading the public and policymakers about climate science. Another example of such behavior is.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable - essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased.
Those are the stubborn facts that the adjacent chart reveals as unequivocal.
Yet, because of the political-driven agenda the IPCC pursues, their latest report states that the world's food production would be more "secure" if CO2 emissions were reduced. Hmm...the exact opposite of known scientific fact.
"There, it can be seen that enriching the air with CO2 almost always leads to significant increases in the photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all of the world's major food crops. And as for the highly-unlikely increase in global temperature that the world's climate alarmists predict to result from projected increases in the air's CO2 content, there are also many studies that reveal the positive consequences of warming for agriculture in Earth's cooler high-latitude regions, such as the recent study of Meng et al. (2014) dealing with maize production in the northern reaches of China. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it..."
"Yet the primary efforts of both of these entities [Ed. the UN's IPCC and the UNFCCC] have been, and continue to be, directed against that which is most needed to produce the required amount food, as they both argue for reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which comprise much of the aerial "food" that sustains all of our food crops."
Truth be told, the headline of this post is not an IPCC quote but obviously it represents what the IPCC is attempting to convince the public of, and unfortunately, the real-world, objective science does not support it in the least.
Summary: The IPCC's fundamental lies continue to establish the blatant anti-science which permeates the entire UN's climate "research" reporting - it's propaganda spin all the way down.
Additional 'C3' charts that challenge the IPCC's anti-science. Note: NOAA CO2 levels on above chart have been super-imposed on the original found here.
What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.
The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.
The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).
Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.
Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.
Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?
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."
Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.
This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.
Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.
First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.
Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.
That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?
The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero.
Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)
Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).
What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?
Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.
Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?
Ahhh.....those stubborn facts. The "consensus" climate science "experts" have been constantly bedeviled by the empirical climate reality, such as this...
(click on chart to enlarge)
NOAA's empirical evidence does not lie, nor deny. Over the last 205 months (Feb. 1, 1997 thru Feb. 28, 2014), the continental U.S. has cooled at a per century rate of -0.96°C.
This has taken place despite the assurance of almost every taxpayer-funded climate scientist that the exact opposite would happen.
They told us that their powerful and sophisticated computer climate models could accurately predict what future climate conditions we would experience.
Except they were spectacularly wrong from day one; and yet, they kept spending multi-billions of taxpayer funds by throwing it down this failed climate research rabbit hole.
Why were the "experts" and the computer simulations so, so wrong?
From a recent essay about this gigantic and embarrassing failure by government scientists, we learn:
"Realities about climate models are much more prosaic. They don’t and can’t work because data, knowledge of atmospheric, oceanographic, and extraterrestrial mechanisms, and computer capacity are all totally inadequate. Computer climate models are a waste of time and money...Inadequacies are confirmed by the complete failure of all forecasts, predictions, projections, prognostications, or whatever they call them."
On average, it's been estimated that a plastic bag weighs 32.5 grams (for the record, a typical grocery store plastic bag weighs only 5 grams). And its been estimated that a plastic bag at the average weight represents about 200 grams of CO2 (when accounting for the plastic bag's production and eventual incineration).
As a result, via simple multiplication, those 100 billion plastic bags equal 20 trillion grams of CO2, which converts to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2.
Sooo.....what's the plastic bag impact on global warming from 20 million tonnes/year of CO2 over the next 20 years?
Well, it's squat, too. There is no warming impact, which makes the Democrats' claim more anti-science propaganda of the quackery sort.
Banning plastic bags due to their climate change impact is sheer nonsense, but banning them for other environmental reasons is a whole 'nuther issue.
The global warming impact calculation can be accomplished with the 'C3' simple estimator found here and just enter the CO2 tonnes amount desired. (Note: The image above is only a replica of the real tool.)
For comparison purposes, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a global warming nothing-burger.
These smiling Democrat senators recently held a "climate change" sleepover at the Capitol that was a rather blatant attempt to please their billionaire-crony donors.
Instead of accomplishing anything meaningful, the low-watt Democrats justifiably received a heavy round of mockery from all sorts of Americans.
The Democrats' climate science has now been in quack mode for an extended period.
An example of the economic harm imposed by this type of anti-science quackery was a legislative victory for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate during 2007 when the "Energy Independence and Security Act" was passed. This 'Act' effectively banned the future purchase of incandescent light bulbs by Americans.
Since the beginning of 2014, those desired, cheap light bulbs have been difficult to find. And it's completely due to the quack anti-science that Democrats believe.
This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.
Thus, they have forced every American to buy more expensive lighting replacements instead of the old, reliably pleasing and inexpensive incandescent technology.
Democrats did this in the name of "science." But as was the case with their recent anti-science climate-pajama party, factual science was pretty much AWOL in the war on light bulbs.
So, what does the indisputable, factual science tell us about the global warming impact of keeping incandescent light bulbs out of the hands of Americans?
Simply put: It is squat - there is zero impact by doing so.
The science is actually pretty straightforward. First, Americans buy some 2 billion bulbs per year. Per the EPA, if each incandescent bulb purchased were replaced instead with an energy efficient CFL bulb purchase, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.0382 metric tonnes. So, two billion bulbs per year times 0.0382 tonnes totals to a yearly CO2 reduction of 76,400,000 tonnes.
Sounds impressive, no?
Well, in the scheme of things that are climate significant, it's not. As the real science dictates, by the end of the next 20 years the yearly CO2 reduction of 76 million plus tonnes will have zero impact on global temperatures. (And that's to the second decimal place.)
Let's do the math (or you can just use this 'C3' estimator whose replica is displayed below the Democrats' photo-op image): We know from the empirical evidence that since 1850 the Earth has warmed a +0.85 Celsius degree while humans have emitted approximately 1.4 trillion tonnes of CO2. As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01°C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.
How's that figure compare to the tonnes saved over 20 years by replacing 40 billion light bulbs? (BTW, it's highly likely there a lot fewer than 40 billion to be replaced.) All those incandescent light bulb CO2 savings would amount to only one-tenth the required 16+ billion tonnes.
And that then means all the CO2 savings would amount to no measurable global temperature impact. Hmmm...did we say 'squat' yet?
Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing-significant outcome for the climate.
That's a climate factcheck.
Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor-cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate-impact substance.
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.
"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.
In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.
As this article describes, new scientific studies have recently been published, strongly indicating that both a long-term and short-term sensitivities are significantly lower than the failed assumptions of the IPCC.
The new research, depending on the time-frame chosen, indicates empirically-based climate sensitivity ranging from +1.0°C to +2.9°C.
Using the above 'C3' tool to estimate different global warming outcomes dependent of climate sensitivity chosen, it can be determined that if this century's climate sensitivity is closer to the '+1.5' the new studies suggest, then the global temperature impact would be a very modest +0.52°C - clearly, not the over-the-top +6 or more degree possibilities tossed about by many "consensus" scientists.
Note: To use the 'C3' global temperature estimator, click on the above image. Input your preferred variable data into the yellow boxes and press 'Enter' or 'Tab' key. Additional 'C3' tools.
An analysis of satellite temperature dataset, through February 2014, identifies only two 5-year periods having significant warming and five periods that exhibit either zero warming or cooling.....the consensus experts' predicted reaction, by the climate, to a surge of human CO2 emissions is not supported by empirical evidence
(click on chart to enlarge)
The adjacent chart clearly depicts the lack of the predicted global warming since the decade of the 1990s.
Utilizing a straight-forward, empirical analysis of the RSS satellite temperature dataset reveals a rather tenuous (non-existent?) relationship between global atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions.
As the chart suggests, a brief global warming spike has morphed into an extended global cooling phase, which the consensus experts have identified as 'the mysterious global-warming hiatus'; plus being forced to trot-out a wild variety of excuses as to why their AGW predictions have failed.
Unfortunately, the GWNs, and their compatriots in the green climate-doomsday-is-near cult, continue to reject the actual scientific empirical evidence, such as the above chart.
Download datasets used to calculate the five-year change (starting base month is February 1979) of RSS atmospheric temperatures; cumulative CO2 emission tonnes, from 1979 through 2013. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
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.
Proponents of the CAGW gloom and doom disaster scenarios often say that we need to "connect the dots" to understand how CO2 emissions are causing dangerous "accelerated" global warming.
Of course, these alarmists hope no one will actually "connect the dots," which is the almost guaranteed case for mainstream science journalists, TV pundits, politicians and Hollywood celebrities - those icons of mental laziness and politically correct thinking.
But what happens when one does actually connect-the-dots?
Well, the real world climate reality is then discovered: global warming has stalled and global cooling trends are appearing (see the UK and the US), confirmed by the scientific empirical evidence.
This adjacent chart for the global temperature trends (using the HC4 temperature dataset published by the UK's premier climate research agency) provides compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are not producing disastrous global warming trends.
As the chart reveals, today's per century trends are dominated by cooling for the different time periods; today's trends are multiple times below prior period, historical highs; the 5, 8 and 10-year trends are definitely below the average modern trend (1950 through 2013); and all the trends are significantly less than those reached 15 years ago (see black dotted lines for year-end 1998 trend levels).
As an aside, in the future, as the 15-year trend moves further and further from the persistent temperature impacts of 1997 and 1998, it too will likely become a negative trend.
None of today's trends even approach the IPCC's predicted trend range of 2 to 6 degrees (C) per century that its "experts" and climate models told us long ago were being experienced (unfortunately, they mistook the natural climate's super El Niño's huge impact during 1997/98 as confirmation of CO2-induced warming).
As readily apparent, because of natural climate feedback forces, yesterday's over-hyped accelerated warming (eg, 1998) can quickly reverse course, delivering robust deceleration and even global cooling.
And that's what one learns from the empirical climate science when the "dots" are truly connected.
More of that connect-the-dot style of climate science reality: modern global and regional temperature charts.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate moving 5-year, 8-year, 10-year and 15-year per century trends (ie, slopes), chart column bars and line curve. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over recent decades, there have been many false claims, misrepresentations and untruths regarding climate change and global warming.
Unfortunately, these deceptions are commonly void of any empirical merit, pernicious in nature and stubbornly deep-seated, often held dear by the world's establishment elites. Typical of false claims held dear include: global warming is "accelerating"; "runaway" global warming is at a "tipping point"; and that the greenhouse gas CO2 is a "control knob" or "thermostat" for Earth's climate.
With an air of authority and trust, agenda-driven, white-coat scientists can make these fictions sound entirely plausible, especially to the incredibly gullible establishment elites. However, these falsehoods rarely can survive even the simplest climate 'factchecks,' which apparently are beyond the intellectual capabilities of most elites.
Case in point, examine the accompanying chart carefully. (click on to enlarge)
Using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2, one can plot the per century warming/cooling trends on a monthly basis going back to 1850. Utilizing the easy-to-use plotting and calculation tools of Microsoft's Excel, it is simple to compare the empirical temperature trends of climate reality with the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
What do these empirical climate records actually reveal?
===> That acceleration of cooling and warming happen with great frequency, then always followed with an inevitable deceleration - "accelerating" warming (nor cooling) persists
===> That the different period cooling/warming trends exist in narrow to wider bands over the total instrumental temperature record
===> That the 10-year trends (cyan) have a narrower ban than the 5-year trends (purple); the 5-year trends have a narrower band than the 3-year trends (green); the 3-year trends have a narrower band than the 2-year trends (blue); and finally, the 2-year trends have a narrower band than the 12-month (one year, red) band
===> The 1-year trends (moving 12-month) reach the greatest extremes, with excesses coming close to either a cooling trend of minus 80 degrees per century or a plus 80 degrees warming trend per century - amazingly, within a few years of each other
===> The greatest warming (acceleration) trends ever recorded took place during the 1870s; the largest cooling trends occurred during the late 1870s and early 1880s.
===> The highest 10-year warming trend (briefly at 4.14°C/century) happened in 1983, well in advance of the highest CO2 atmospheric levels achieved during the 1990s and the 2000s
===> The 2013 year-end per century trends (note the color arrows on chart's right axis) are well below previous warming trends
===> Although the 1-year moving trends in the distant past have approached both extremely high and cold temperature rates, the natural climate reactions then produced reversing course corrections (i.e. nature responds to extremes by avoiding long-term "runaway" and "tipping point" conditions)
===> The future climate will continiue to exhibit high natural acceleration and deceleration for both cooling and warming, guaranteed
===> The continuous growth of cumulative CO2 emissions over the entire span since 1850 has likely zero correlation with the constant acceleration/deceleration of natural climate temperature trends - CO2's impact on the trends is demonstrably minimal
===> The immense increase of CO2 levels (110ppm) since 1850 has not produced any trend peak, nor trough, during the post-WWII era that could be even remotely construed as "unprecedented" or "runaway" or a "tipping point" condition (with the possible exception being the 1-year cooling trend trough reached during the 1970s)
===> Simply put (which is blatantly obvious from the empirical evidence), human CO2 emissions or total CO2 atmospheric levels are not the "control knob"/"thermostat" that the white-coat, agenda-driven scientists say they can manipulate to manage the globe's temperatures.
Prior to the immense post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, the world was warming, which peaked in the year 1944 (see chart).
The total pre-modern temperature increase to an identified peak (Sept. 1944) was +0.55°C, using the 12-month mean for year 1850 as the starting point.
Since the end of 1944 though, the modern era warming only added another +0.40°C on top of the 1944 peak, based on the high point for the rolling 12-month average, which was reached in mid-1998 (Aug. 1998).
With all the doom and gloom of global warming alarmism, this unexpected truth of modern global warming being less than the pre-modern era is an indicator that man-made catastrophe is not just around the corner. And this good news comes to us from the IPCC's own gold-standard for temperature observations - the UK's HadCRUT4 global dataset.
Also, the above chart of the 12-month means clearly shows a climate that moves from cooling to warming phases, and then back - a natural oscillation that 'catastrophic global warming' skeptics have long discussed, while being dismissed by the IPCC and its cohorts.
Keeping the observed oscillation in mind, the last significant warming ended with a peak in 1998 (the peak during 2010 was a very close second) and temperatures have since paused. Recently, this natural climate oscillation has been identified (by none other than the premier science journal Nature) as a potential cause of the 'Pause' that is generating such befuddlement for the "consensus" climate experts.
Not only has there been a very noticeable pause, since late 2001 there has been an actual cooling of global temperatures, which is noted on the chart with a light blue text box. As for the 12-month 2013 mean, it represents a slight temperature drop of -0.09°C since the 1998 peak (another case of those-stubborn-facts).
Understand, this chart does not explain the amount of any given warming/cooling that is due to either nature or humans, respectively. Nor does it tell us how long the 'Pause' will last or which direction temperatures will take after the stall. Some experts say temperatures will surely fall, while others claim that warming is hiding in the ocean deeps just waiting to climb out - your choice as to which view is correct.
The chart does suggest however that unpredictable temperature movements and climate change will happen regardless of CO2 levels and any human actions.
Finally, many CAGW alarmists predict that global temperatures will jump some 6 degrees by year 2100AD with a doubling of CO2. This chart's axes have been set to provide that context. Per the empirical history since 1850 and the recent global cooling, the 2100AD temp is much more likely to reflect the established +0.47°C per century trend...one thinks.
For those sharp-eyed readers, the chart title has slightly different temperature increase numbers than this article's text. The chart increases are based on the year-end that the peak temperatures took place; the increases used in the text are based on the actual month/year the 12-month mean peak happened.
Note: Excel was used to calculate the 12-month rolling means and plot the data. Used the HadCRUT4 dataset; the post-1958 CO2 dataset; and the pre-1958 CO2 dataset (divided annual ppm levels by 12). Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Other IPCC consensus "experts" are wildly throwing around a hodgepodge of reasons that at last count was up to eight. Take your pick.
One reason definitely not on the table for discussion by climate reality deniers resisters is the obvious one: increasing CO2 levels are having little impact on global temperatures, which means that nature's normal climate forces overwhelm any CO2 influence. For the consensus scientists to open this can-of-worms would be the death knell of the AGW hypothesis - scientists driven by greed and the limelight do not willingly eviscerate the golden ox that has produced multi-billions for research grants and scientific studies.
Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.
This obvious climate reality is portrayed in the above chart. Literally, 3-year changes in CO2 levels have no correlation with 3-year changes in global temperatures for the IPCC's modern era, starting with 1950. Simply put, one does not have to be a rocket scientist, nor a climate scientist, to ascertain that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is severely dysfunctional.
Eventually, global warming phase will return, as it always has in the past, but the climate models' prediction outcomes (and credibility) will likely be even worse, if that is even possible.
Poll after poll clearly indicates that Americans do not believe the Obama administration's anti-science claims (bogus?) regarding climate change and global warming.
Most Americans understand the day-to-day climate reality, thus they handily reject the climate hysteria and gutter-smears that both Obama and John Kerry feel compelled to utter.
As this accompanying chart reveals, global temperature change has decelerated and is now in negative (ie, global cooling) territory - the pink dot denotes current climate reality during the Obama administration.
This empirical evidence from the UK's climate research agency is the gold-standard, utilized by the UN's IPCC.
The red curve is a plot of 5-year "acceleration" (or lack thereof) presented as 5-year per century trend data-points (based on 60-month linear trends calculated for each month since 1850). The black plot represents a simple 10-year moving average of the 60-month data-points.
Why 5 years? Reality: The Obama administration has occupied the White House for the last 5 years.
What does the chart establish? Reality: Since a peak of warming "acceleration" during the second Bush administration, the short-term global warming trend has collapsed during Obama's term. Indeed, short-term global cooling is the current scientific fact.
How does the current short-term trend compare to previous administrations? Reality: During the modern era since 1950, Democrat administrations under Carter and Clinton reached the greatest warming accelerations (respectively, a 7.8°C/century trend during 1980 and a 8.4°C/century during 1998).
For comparisons sake, those 5-year acceleration peaks exceeding 5.0°C/century have been labeled on the chart with their respective White House occupants. And note, the greatest global warming short-term accelerations took place prior to 1950, plus being prior to the large influx of post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
When should a future president and the public become concerned about global warming caused climate change? Reality: When warming finally exceeds the unprecedented per century trend rate (11.5°C) previously reached during the Rutherford Hayes administration (1877-1881), for an extended period (say, 2 years as a minimum).
Again, the pink dot on the chart tells the climate science reality: Per the empirical evidence, the recent White House anti-science climate change comments are blatantly false, without any scientific merit, and are deserving of multiple Pinocchio badges.
More climate science reality: Those modern global and regional temperature charts that don't lie.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate 5-year slopes, 10-year averages and plots. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how. Source of Pinocchio image.
And now NOAA has just released their U.S. dataset update, which reveals that U.S. winters (November, December, January), over the last 20 years, have cooled at a -2.5°F per century rate. The adjacent NOAA/NCDC web site chart depicts that cooling trend.
As this NOAA dataset suggests, the reason for worse winter weather in the U.S. is likely a cooling climate change that has followed the previous modern warming - a natural climate response.
Again, 'those-stubborn-facts' that are so inconvenient for politicians.
Most everyone (99.9%?) involved in the climate science community are fully aware of NASA's gross manipulation "enhancement" of the historical global temperature record dataset.
It's understood by all that the real 20th century warming was just not very dramatic, thus it had to be 'sexed up' to fit the alarmist fear-mongering. As a result, the NASA/GISS climate agency has shown their amazing "scientific" capabilities by producing an enhanced global warming trend.....by simply, and literally, lowering (ie, cooling) past recorded temperatures prior to 1960.
This chart clearly reveals these NASA's manipulation "enhancement" results, which are laughable, unless of course, one is unaware of the back story of manipulated "enhancing" climate science.
NASA's has done a yeoman's job keeping the U.S. mainstream press from discussing the faux global warming trend but international news agencies have less qualms about reporting the truth.
This chart comes from an international newscast regarding the fake global warming. The newscast about the chart and the political agenda behind it can be watched by clicking on the graph. Or read about it here.
The empirical evidence is indisputable and unequivocal.
The continental U.S. has been cooling (-6.5°F/century rate) over the last 15 years, per NOAA. This can no longer be denied by the scientific community and the politicians fanatically pushing the anti-science claim that dangerous and rapid global warming is taking place, due to human CO2 emissions.
This chart plots the most recent monthly U.S. temperatures through January 2014, including the simple 36-month moving average of CO2 atmospheric levels over the last 180 months.
While "global warming" activists/proponents focus on superficial, short-term cherry-picks of the "hottest ________" (just fill in the blank with 'day', 'week', 'month', 'quarter', 'year', etc. to mimic a typical fanatic's cherry-picking spiel), those stubborn climate facts, which are critical, remain simple: the entire globe has experienced a long warming 'pause' and America's climate has been on a cooling trend over that same time span.
Scientists are unable to explain this 'standstill' using the "consensus" AGW hypothesis, and any discussions of the 'inconvenient' U.S. cooling trend are entirely avoided by politicians, climate agency scientists/bureaucrats and other warming advocates.
The observed current U.S. cooling trend is not a prediction, but it does indicate that the continental landmass is affected by powerful, non-CO2 greenhouse gas factors that may continue for the near future.
Note: Chart's linear trend is calculated using monthly absolute temperature values. If using anomalies instead, based on monthly averages from 1901 to 2000 base period, the per century cooling trend is -2.4°F.
Datasets used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. 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.
IPCC scientists assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, remaining anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.
This assumption is a cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis. The cumulative CO2 growth causes global warming that accelerates (they hypothesize) to a condition of "runaway" temperature increases via positive feedbacks, leading to catastrophic "tipping point" climate change.
To simplify, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and climate models, assume that every additional emission molecule of atmospheric CO2 will accelerate the global warming, to the point of no return. Thus, each new tonne (metric) of CO2 will boost the acceleration via a theoretical positive feedback amplification.
But does the empirical evidence actually indicate that is indeed what is taking place?
Using a combination of the NOAA annual global temperature dataset and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.
This article's chart provides the answer. As can be observed, each new CO2 emission molecule added to the climate has a smaller and small impact, the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. In 1941, the degree increase per tonne hit a peak. Since then, the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne.
The AGW hypothesis does not account for this ever smaller impact of CO2. Possibly this is the reason for the "consensus" unexpected global warming 'hiatus', which the IPCC scientists are still at a loss to explain.
If this tiny impact stays constant over the next 30 years, and the growth rate of CO2 emissions over the last 15 years remains the same for the next 30 years (another trillion tonnes emitted), the potential increase of global temperatures will barely be +0.2°C (two-tenths of a degree) by year 2044. And if each tonne's impact continues to shrink, as the evidence suggests, so will the temperature increase shrink.
Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions. As the Nature science journal indicates, currently, and for the near future, a natural PDO cooling phase may dominate.
More on the above 'C3' chart. Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880).
The ratio allows for depicting visually the influence of all those previous CO2 emissions on moving 30-year climate periods. The chart's additional green and light blue curves simply provide a smoothed sense of direction of the fossil fuel emission influence.
Summary: The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis. Per the well known and documented CO2 physics, this outcome should not be a surprise. It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' in science.
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.
Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, "consensus" climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling "experts" at NASA.
This chart depicts the famous global warming predictions made by NASA's chief climate scientist in 1988 at a hearing before the U.S. Senate.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.
Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.
Yet, despite the NASA "expertise" and the gigantic growth of human CO2 emissions, actual global temperatures over the past 25 years have closely matched Hansen's 'Scenario C', which he predicted would take place if CO2 emissions had been limited to year 2000 levels.....didn't happen.
Unexpectedly (i.e. not predicted), global temperatures flat-lined and CO2 emissions continued on their merry, amazing growth path, unabated.
Regarding climate reality, the lack of global warming was not a prediction that climate models were programmed to produce. The models do not rely on natural climate change or natural climate warming and cooling attributes. It is not in the models' software "DNA" because human climate experts really don't understand the chaotic nature of Earth's climate, nor comprehend the true power of nature.
The experts are befuddled and recognize that they are without a rational reason for the global warming pause, other than the obvious: natural climate change.
If the current 17-year trend continues, the oceans would warm by an almost unmeasurable one-tenth of a degree Celsius by year 2100. (The 17-year period is 204 months, starting with January 1, 1997 - that is before the super El Nino phenomenon of 1997-1998)
The adjacent charts (courtesy of ocean expert Bob Tisdale) plot the temperature changes for each major ocean basin since late 1981.
The red vertical line on each chart denotes the date of January 1997. The trend data in the corner of each chart assumes the trend from 1997 will continue to year 2100 (warming: trends are not predictions).
From these individual charts, we learn that the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern isn't; it's warming for all the Atlantic basins yet cooling for all the Pacific basins.
Clearly, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and its associated climate models, provide no explanation for this mishmash. It's hard enough for the "experts" to even explain why the Arctic basin warming took off in recent years, while the Southern Ocean basin did the exact opposite, let alone trying to make sense of this global 'mishmash' using the rather lame construct of CO2 greenhouse gas causation.
Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.
Note: Bob Tisdale used NOAA's Nomad web site to create the charts. The Nomad ocean dataset is the highest resolution climate record available but it only goes back to 1981. Bob Tisdale article the charts pulled from.
NASA's climate research arm, GISS, recently updated its global temperature dataset.
Using the annual temperature anomaly data from GISS, in combination with annual CO2 data from NOAA, the temperature increase per atmospheric CO2 ppm increase can be calculated.
Now, if global warming is solely a function of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, then calculating the degree increase per ppm added would be a convenient measure to monitor.
As this chart reveals, for the 50-year period ending 1963, for each ppm increase of CO2 there was an associated increase of +0.024°C; in contrast, for the 50-year period ending 2013, the impact on warming was 67% less per ppm.
This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics - the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. Essentially, from lab testing it was determined that increasing levels of CO2 caused a diminishing returns effect, which is better described here.
The logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was first presented way back in the 1930s by a scientist named Guy Callendar, and it is now widely accepted as science fact.
And as the entire world knows by now, global warming is stuck in 'The Hiatus' that has resulted in temperatures barely budging over the last 16 years. This is despite the prodigious amounts of new CO2 emissions over that time span - recall, as the chart indicates, the influence of CO2 has declined.
What this means is that future CO2 emission impacts will likely continue to lessen, to the point where they become rather inconsequential, which the climate may already be approaching in a manner faster than expected.
Certainly, it would seem this fellow Callendar was really onto something. Plus, he discounted the speculative idea that higher levels of CO2 would create a positive feedback supposedly leading to ever higher temps. It appears he was wise to dismiss the shaky concept of "tipping point" positive feedbacks.
Not bad for a scientist without the "benefits" of super-computers, satellites, IPCC conferences, huge government funding of climate research and etc.