A new focused effort by a team of researchers analyzed 26 decades of hurricane activity, covering the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) through 2012 for the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico water regions.
As most scientists agree, be they orthodox or skeptic, the world has been modestly warming since the end of the LIA.
Yet the proponents of global warming alarmism "science" have claimed that severe weather, such as hurricanes, has increased dramatically due to this rather modest warming.
These expert claims were primarily based on simulations from climate models (and less so on the actual empirical evidence) which has become a sure fire methodology of producing bass-ackwards fake science.
This new empirical study presents the evidence from the last 260 years of hurricane activity and the result is irrefutable as the adjacent chart reveals. Not only has hurricane activity not increased across the wide areas examined, the activity has actually been on a slow declining trend.
"In their intriguing analysis published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, the four-member research team of Rojo-Garibaldi et al. developed a new database of historical hurricane occurrences in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, spanning twenty-six decades over the period 1749 to 2012. Statistical analysis of the record revealed "the hurricane number is actually decreasing in time," which finding is quite stunning...as the Mexican research team indicates, "when analyzing the entire time series built for this study, i.e., from 1749 to 2012, the linear trend in the number of hurricanes is decreasing"."
What truly makes this a head-exploding study for celebrity "scientists" is not only the fact the findings are the opposite of what they predicted, but that this Mexican scientific team tied the decline to natural solar events, not human CO2 emissions. (See more information on the study.)
As the previous article laid out (see article's chart), the globe warmed substantially during the latest El Niño phase of ENSO (see past ENSO history).
But after a natural warming ENSO 'spike,' such as the one covering the 2015-2016 period, Earth's frequent natural reaction is to enter a cooling phase, which this time apparently commenced after the peak in February 2016.
The adjacent chart reveals the exact same lower troposphere (LT) warming and cooling spikes as the prior chart, but using a different plotting style.
This different style does not depict as much detail regarding the actual monthly temperatures as the earlier chart did. This style chart leaves a stronger impression that monthly global warming has been on a continuous upswing, instead of the actual frequent ups/downs of monthly climate temperature change.
For this chart, we changed from a simple 12-month average for both CO2 and temperatures to a 36-month average for both. In addition, a linear temperature trend curve (see dashed maroon line) has been added.
#1. As in the prior article, this chart indicates a long-term global warming trend of 1.07°C by 2100AD - this includes the most recent warming phase of ENSO. [Linear trends are not predictions - they have no predictive power since over the short-term they can change dramatically.]
#2. The chart's 36-month simple moving average (red curve) of LT temperatures indicates an extended pause - i.e. the 'Hiatus' - in overall global warming, from approximately mid-1999 to mid-2015.
#3. The chart's CO2 36-month moving average of ppm levels reveals a continuous linear growth status, whereas the 36-month satellite temp average is anything but.
The datasets used for this chart and the prior article's chart are exactly the same. However, the plot styles are different providing a different context of the cooling/warming of global temperatures. The different context is valuable and there will be future 'C3' charts depicting different plot styles (providing additional context for the reader) using the same dataset and sub-datasets.
This chart's linear trend is exactly the same: a trend that indicates a +1.07°C warming by 2100AD - a rather non-catastrophic warming trend that will likely produce more climate change benefit for the world than harm.
The recent weak scientific attempts to disappear the existence of the sideways movement of overall global warming is clearly debunked by the actual 12 and 36-month averages of LT temperatures from 1999-2015. The real empirical evidence confirms the 'Pause.'
This chart also shows that CO2 levels are not driving the considerable spikes of warming and cooling that take place - natural forces overwhelm any CO2 impact.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, trends, and to chart the dataset plots. Lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - an equal weighting monthly average dataset used in chart's plot; NOAA's atmospheric CO2 dataset.
The gold-standard for climate science temperature measurements is produced by the advanced, 24/7 monitoring accomplished by orbiting satellites.
Unlike the deployed small number of geographically-sparse surface thermometers, satellites essentially cover the entire world on a continuous basis.
And unlike earthly thermometers, which more often than not reside within known hot-spots, such as metro airports and urban heat sinks of concrete, asphalt and steel, satellite measurements are not affected by human structures, not by transit activities, not by industrial production, and not by power generation.
Satellites are the only available technology scientists have that truly measure temperatures in a global fashion, without all the inherent biases influencing surface-based thermometers.
This unrivaled, sophisticated technology has been performing its empirical measurement duties over the last 38 full years, which the adjacent chart is a plot of. Each month's temperature average is shown by an orange circle (each circle is the average of the two major lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH). The red curve is a moving 12-month simple average of the monthly datapoints.
In addition, the chart includes a plot of NOAA's monthly atmospheric CO2 level (see black dots) and its moving 12-month simple average (grey curve with arrowhead).
#1. As measured, the monthly CO2 levels continue to steadily increase at a linear rate, which if maintained, will almost reach an atmospheric level of 555ppm by 2100AD.
#2. As measured, the temperature trend for the last 38 years (starting with January 1979) indicates an increase of 1.07°C by 2100AD, if that trend is maintained.
#3. As measured, the global average temperatures sporadically gyrate up/down, which the red curve clearly depicts.
#4. As measured, there are very obvious significant warming/cooling spikes that took place in the recent past.
#5. As measured, global LT temperatures spiked warmer during the 2015-2016 period, achieving the highest recorded temperature during February 2016, exceeding the previous high from April 1998 by some +0.12°C. March 2016 was the only other month exceeding the April 1998 measurement (approximately by+0.005°C).
#6. As measured, global temperatures typically spike down after a strong spike up.
#7. As measured, LT global temperatures have declined considerably from the February 2016 high to the year's low of December 2016 - an average global temperature that is below both the December 1987 and December 1998 global temperatures (see magenta-tinted circles), respectively 29 and 18 years ago.
#8. As measured, this gold-standard empirical evidence reveals that only 12% of global LT temperature datapoints since December 1987 were higher.
#9. As measured, the combined RSS and UAH dataset averages show an extended pause in the overall warming - i.e. the hiatus - that stretched across a span from about 1999 to the beginning of 2015.
The below points should be viewed as opinions, or if one wants to be fancy about it, conclusions and assessments. While they are opinions, the actual empirical evidence from the satellites - the climate science gold-standard - is quite supportive.
Global LT temperatures will continue to decline sporadically throughout 2017, which the satellite empirical evidence from the past 38 years (456 monthly measurements) suggests will be a normal/natural cooling reaction to the warming spike.
During the next 18 months, it can be expected that a low temperature point will be reached before a rebounding commences.
Despite the steady increase of CO2 emissions and levels, the natural oscillation phases known as El Niño and La Niña totally overwhelm any modest warming influence of this trace greenhouse gas.
Global LT temperature spikes, both up and down, are primarily due to major natural climate oscillations/cycles, plus natural phenomenons, such as volcano eruptions; temp spikes are not a result of steadily rising human CO2 emissions and/or atmospheric CO2 levels. The 2015-16 El Niño produced the highest temperature anomaly spike since satellite measurements began.
Significant global absolute LT temperature warming, as of December 2016, has not taken place since December 1987. There indeed have been multiple 'hot' and 'cold' years in between these two Decembers but the latest December absolute temperature is still lower than that of December 1987.
Global LT temperatures are highly unlikely to achieve a 3 to 6 degree increase by 2100AD that many consensus experts speculate will happen.
The identified modest warning trend from modern satellite measurements supports the historical evidence and anecdotal recordings that a modest warming has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The orthodox anthropogenic hypothesis of catastrophic global warming that much of high-level governmental policy-making is based on, is for all practical purposes, invalidated.
Regarding that last point, consensus climate science has proposed a hypothesis on the claim that climate physics dictates that rising atmospheric CO2 levels will warm the atmosphere substantially, thus causing a positive feedback loop, which will then continuously accelerate warming until a tipping point of runaway temperatures take place, turning Earth into the next Venus. This one simple sentence is a nutshell summation of the supposed complex climate physics of "dangerous" global warming that has actually been tested.
The result of that 38-year long real test is that the gold-standard satellite empirical evidence clearly invalidates this hypothesis of positive feedback(s) leading to runaway, catastrophic warming.
Fortunately for the world and its populace, the climate science dogmatic consensus is robustly without any scientific empirical merit. It may indeed get warmer but the catastrophic predictions are not connected to science reality.
It is unequivocally true that climate change, both mild and extreme, is always happening - paleoclimatology research evidence establishes that.
There is no debate that climate change existed prior to humans' impact on Earth, and will continue regardless of whether human CO2 emissions persist or cease.
Scientists continue to investigate past climate change events to better understand modern climate change, including extreme drought.
Case in point: scientists recently published peer-reviewed research that identified extreme drought periods on Canada's Vancouver Island, specifically the British Columbia Tsable River region.
Their research confirmed that since 1520AD, and prior to the instrumental record, extreme droughts took place that were of equal severity to those of modern droughts.
"Severe summer streamflow droughts are impacting many watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Small coastal basins that are the primary water source for most communities and essential to Pacific salmon populations have been particularly affected...Explaining 63% of the instrumental streamflow variability...Our findings suggest that since 1520, 21 droughts occurred that were more extreme than recent “severe” events like those in 2003 and 2009. Recent droughts are therefore not anomalous relative to the ~400 year pre-instrumental record.....The influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on instrumental and modeled Tsable River summer streamflow is likely linked to the enhanced role of snowmelt in determining summer discharge during cool phases."
Past extreme drought events are clear examples of continuous natural climate change that the modern era cannot escape. Humans do not cause climate change, it just happens.
UK's Daily Mail published article that discusses global warming collapse, based on latest empirical evidence being reported by the Met Office Hadley Centre.....the global temperatures have dropped hugely since the 2015-2016 El Nino peak...
The global temperature chart image on the left is from the Daily Mail.
The recent substantial drop in world temperatures is evident. Clearly, the temperature spike caused by the recent El Nino is in the process of being reversed, and quickly with some gusto.
The image on the right represents a plot multiple global per century temperature trends based on the same UK global anomaly dataset used by the Daily Mail to plot absolute temps. The blue 1-year (12-month) trends show the dramatic global warming trend reversal over the most recent months - from a peak in March 2016 to what now amounts to being a significant cooling trend by October 2016.
The other plotted trends for longer periods will eventually follow the direction of the 1-year trend as the slide of future global temperatures from the peak continues.
A note of interest is the fact that none of the different period warming trends plotted exceeded those reached in the past during periods of lower atmospheric CO2. Despite this incredibly powerful El Nino taking place during modern history's period of the highest CO2 levels recorded, the 2015/16 warming trends generated never surpassed those experienced in the past.
The 2016 Trump election landslide and Republican down ticket success indicate a strong possibility of a return to common sense and honesty in climate science, as well as a massive voter rejection of Democrats’ climate fear-mongering ... catastrophic global warming skeptics should rejoice......
The popular mandate that Obama and Democrats assumed they had from the American public has been shattered, with a top-to-bottom landslide of the GOP 2016 election victories.
This election, and the cumulative effect of prior ones, has decimated the once major party across the country. They have been reduced to finger-pointing recriminations and internal threats to Democrat cohesion.
They no longer have a supposed mandate, let alone majority voter support, for any of their U.S. national policies, including the recent unilateral climate change regulations and associated anti-growth policies issued/authorized by Democrat politicians.
The 2016 election numbers speak for themselves regarding the decimated state of Democrats and the resurgent GOP:
If the Hillary Clinton popular vote is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then52% percent of U.S. voters cast their ballot against her1.
If the Hillary Clinton states-won is the proxy for 'green' climate change solutions, then at least 60% of the states voted against her2.
If the Hillary Clinton counties-won is the proxy for support of progressive climate change solutions, then 84% of state counties voted against her3/*.
If the Hillary Clinton suburbs-won is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then 75% voted against her4.
If the Hillary Clinton medium cities-won is the proxy for supporting left-liberal proposed climate change solutions, then 75% voted against her4.
If the Hillary Clinton small cities-won is the proxy for supporting Democrat proposed climate change solutions, then 85% voted against her4.
If the Hillary Clinton rural areas-won is the proxy for supporting Democrats' 'green' proposed climate change solutions, then 90% voted against her4.
If the number of Democrat House Representatives is the proxy for Democrat climate change solutions, they received 3.7 million less votes than their GOP opponents5, which resulted in the Dems winning less than 45% of House seats5.
If the number of Democrat senators is the proxy for Democrat left-wing climate change solutions, they remain less than 50% of the Senate's makeup6.
If the number of Democrat governors is the proxy for Democrat climate change solutions, they now only occupy 30% of the state mansions7.
If the number of Democrat majority state legislatures is the proxy for Democrat green-progressive climate change solutions, they now only control 31% of these chambers8.
Based on all the above datapoints, combined with the election map's visual representation, Trump and the GOP totally destroyed any mandate and power base that Democrats once possessed, besides laying waste to Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations.
The 2016 election outcome significantly reduced the impact of Democrat office holders across the entire country, but with a single exception - the Democrat one-party rule in U.S. major urban centers.
Election results from 2016 do show that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats continue their decades-long dominance (and mismanagement) of the modern urban-plantation areas. These metro geographic area characteristics include: high levels of poverty, huge young person unemployment, significant welfare dependence, massive violent crime outcomes, substantial illegal immigrant populations, and just plain, awful, lousy education performance.
Clinton won 90%4 of this metro constituency (note: these voters really don't care about climate change or honest science - understandably, they just want to simply survive their concrete hellholes on a day-to-day basis).
In contrast to Clinton's urban strongholds, Trump won the entire country with 306 electoral votes9, which clearly indicates his geographical diversity and dominance.
Looked at another way, on Nov. 8, 2016, there were 51 popular elections held (the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia); and Trump won 319 of those popular elections.
Going even more granular, each county in the country held a popular-vote presidential election and Trump won 2,633* of those county elections, while Clinton only won 487* counties.
Unequivocally, there exists an overwhelming and diversified geographic domination by Trump and the GOP - it represents a solid, country-wide mandate.
And all of the above represents a clear refutation of the post-election urban millennial temper tantrums that have produced dangerous, destructive riots plaguing the remaining one-party strongholds of Democrats. In addition, the country-wide success of the GOP and Trump on election day is also clear refutation of Hollywood's and Silicon Valley's wealthy safe-space temper tantrums.
Finally, the left/liberals who thought Hillary Clinton would win in a "landslide" were demanding that Republicans and Trump voters support country unity with the inevitable Hillary win. Yet with roles now reversed, the Democrats choose to promote country disunity by their attempts to reverse the substantial Trump electoral and geographic election wins.
While the Democrat progressive post-election meltdown continues over their massive election loss, GOP leadership needs to immediately focus their own re-energized strength on quickly reversing the economic/business damage that the UN, Obama and the EPA imposed in the name of global warming and climate change.
And with the backing of a strong voter mandate, Republican leaders should absolutely ignore any and all pleas of their Democrat counterparts for climate/energy policy compromise - ahem.....let's hope the stupid party does not fall for that scam again.
Paraphrasing the great words of the legacy-less Obama - "we won," now shut up and enjoy our fossil fuel independence, security and economic growth.
*USA Today and Wikipedia were used in combination to ascertain how many total U.S. counties (including parishes, and counting Alaska as a single county since it is not divided into the familiar county structure). For example, here are the respective links (USA Today and Wikipedia) used for Alabama counties - each state has its own link within these two web publications that list their counties info.
Note: Long-term modest global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age ending; climate change has been a constant since the beginning of Earth's climate(s) and will continue to take place regardless of human activities.
"Can't predict squat" has become a climate science known ... thus, we have the common climate expert lament: so many predictions, yet so many failures ... but climate science "experts" are not the only ones who litter the public terrain with DOA prediction carcasses.....
The 2016 election Trump again reminded everyone that the vast majority of experts, pundits and journalists are not only terrible at short-term and long-term predictions, but also their failed prognostications usually, and directly, lead to public reactions that would not have occurred otherwise, such as the post-election anti-Trump riots.
As the New York Post cover page shown on the left confirms, the public was completely mislead by the mainstream media regarding Hillary Clinton's supposedly massive soon-to-be landslide election over the hapless Trump.
To compound the consensus expert election idiocy of 2016, many of the same "experts" then predicted that economic disaster would immediately follow this "unexpected" election of Trump. Here are the infamous Chuck Todd of NBC and Paul Krugman of the New York Times providing post-Trump election predictions that were completely without merit - literally, pure mainstream B.S. speculation posing as truth.
Now please note the 5-year Dow Jones Industrial chart depicted above on the right, as of Friday, November 12. Because investors were pleased that Hillary Clinton lost, the market set new records over the 3 days immediately after the election. The Trump unexpected coattails obviously extended beyond just the large GOP gains across the nation from the November 8 election.
Finally, because the experts and the media significantly misinformed the public constantly with Hillary-biased polls, combined with just plain ludicrous Trump fear-mongering, society's most gullible and misinformed Facebook generation went on a rampage with destructive and violent riots.
The moral of this story? The consensus experts, in almost every field, have an extremely high probability of being wrong, especially the ones pushing biased, agenda-driven doomsday scenarios and outcomes; and, the conclusion is indisputable: they should not be trusted at all by the public.
It would seem, despite the extreme denial of most anti-CO2 activists and UN bureaucrats, that the climate has always changed, frequently making dramatic shifts.
Even producing big shifts prior to the major morphing to a greenhouse gas emitting industrial/consumer society.
Despite the immense treasure of climate change empirical and anecdotal evidence of time past compiled by dedicated researchers, scientists are still conducting new research to delineate the scope and breadth of past changes.
This latest research, done by a group of European scientists, focused on the Northern Hemisphere's hydroclimatology responses to temperature change over 12 centuries. Their findings included:
"...report that (1,2) "proxy evidence does not support the tendency in simulations for wet regions to become wetter and dry regions drier in a warmer climate," that (3) their "hydroclimate reconstruction does not support a general unprecedented intensification of the hydrological cycle in the twentieth century, associated with both more extreme wet and dry conditions, as simulated by an ensemble of models," and that (4) "this finding is in line with recent analyses of instrumental data reporting limited evidence for an intensification of wet and dry anomalies under current global warming,"." Nature 532: 10.1038/nature17418.
In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).
Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions - and Exxon - are not to blame.
As has often been the case, official climate science is now agreeing with what skeptics identified several years ago: Antarctica is not warming.
The prestigious science consensus journal Nature has published a new peer-reviewed study that counters what that journal has been reporting about Antarctica for at least the last decade.
This should not come as a surprise to the observant.
The global warming doomsday scientists have relied on a compliant mainstream media to claim that their opinions represent the supposed 97% of settled science - an indisputable "consensus" that should not be debated. But, as in almost every scientific endeavor, the science is never, ever settled.
Yet the climate science orthodoxy continues to push the catastrophic scenario that Earth's major coastal and island regions will be submerged due to the melting of the polar ice sheets found in Antarctica. Unfortunately for the consensus alarmism, this new study indicates Antarctica's canary in the global warming fearmongering-fable has actually been cooling over the last 20 years, not warming (see chart).
"Natural variability was responsible both for the decades-long warming since the 1950s and more recent cooling, according to research published today in Nature. The research, led by John Turner from the British Antarctic Survey, said while the start of Antarctic Peninsula cooling in 1998 had coincided with the so-called “global warming hiatus”, the two were not connected."
And what do they say next, after being severely humiliated with the empirical evidence that skeptics rely on? Well.....the consensus doomsday scientists bounce right back with their orthodoxy beliefs, based on the always wrong climate model computer simulations.
"Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long-term warming because of man-made climate change...“Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late-20th-century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,” the Turner research concluded."
Stephen Hawking has gained a less than stellar reputation for predicting doomsday catastrophes multiple times. Seems his non-scientific predictions are classic clickbait catnip for mainstream media publications and net tabloids.
Hawking's space alien, robot, and nuclear war prognostications have gotten a lot of play and views. Yet they are essentially just vague fear-mongering memes provided by an individual with a high IQ.
And then there is his latest doomsday scenario of human CO2 emission causing global warming so hot that humanity on Earth is wiped out by a Venus-like climate of 250 degrees. Unfortunately for Hawking, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that Earth becoming Venus is such an absurdity that even the fear-mongers at the IPCC won't support this vaporfear.
Why is Hawking's Venus prediction so way out there in the twilight zone of black holes? Just look at the adjacent chart.
Plotted are the absolute temperatures for the tropical oceans and the atmosphere above the tropical oceans, as of April 2016 (purple columns). If the oceans are going to be boiled-off by Venus atmospheric temperature levels, then we are a very long way from that happening.
But what about Earth's temperatures a 100 years from now, due to that "runaway" warming Hawking insinuates that we suffer from?
Well, based on the linear trend of temperatures since the satellite measurement age began in 1979, the expected tropical temperatures for April 2116 (yellow columns on chart) will barely budge up - ahem, 250 degrees is not in the cards. Earth's actual experience with Hawking's modern "runaway" warming clearly indicates that we can't get there (250 degrees) from here (25.3°, -4.2°, -24.2°).
And by the time the next 100 years passes, humanity will no longer be using fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. Technology will advance far enough during that time to make the issue of runaway warming or climate change tipping points from human greenhouse gas emissions moot historical footnotes.
Note: Calculated rolling absolute temps using 12-month averages of anomalies and then adding an average absolute temp to the anomalies. Absolute average temp used for HadSST, 24.4C; absolute average temp for UAH lower troposphere -5.0C; absolute average temp for mid-troposphere, -25.0C. Excel used to calculate averages and plot column chart. Venus surface, lower and mid-troposphere temperatures are vastly hotter than 250 degrees that Hawking alluded to.
This article discusses the severe forest fire that is currently happening in the Fort McMurray area of Canada, which the article's author takes issue with those claiming the fire is due to climate change from human activities - i.e. human CO2 emissions, etc.
Claims that specific fires (and forest and wildfires overall) are due to human greenhouse gases have routinely been made since the 1988 testimony of NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, predicted that rapid and accelerating warming from GHG emissions would cause more severe and frequent weather events.
As a result of this Congressional testimony, the "consensus" climate experts then predicted that the "dangerous" human-caused warming would produce a significant trend increase of wildfires, especially in the northern hemisphere's boreal forests.
Although the globe has warmed since 1988 (not rapid, nor accelerating, see here and here), the trend for Canadian boreal forest fires has been the opposite of that predicted over the 27 years after the Hansen 1988 testimony.
The adjacent charts plots the number of Canadian forest fires and hectares burned. Clearly, the trends are declining, which suggests an inverse relationship with the level of atmospheric CO2 (ppm CO2 is the chart's right axis).
Despite those climate "experts" failed prognostications, the recent irrefutable empirical evidence indicates that the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions are producing a greener and healthier biosphere, which actually may be more resistant to wildfires.
Additional forest fire articles of the past [tip: then use browser Cntrl-F function to do search on word 'forest' to find forest fire news articles on that page].
Note: Canadian forest fire statistics source; Excel used to plot annual fire statistics and linear trends.
Earlier this year, a comparison was done using the GISS global temperature observations dataset versus an earlier version of the NASA/GISS computer climate model output, as of 2015 year-end. That comparison can be viewed here.
It is now 4 months later with the current powerful El Niño producing some very high global temperature averages.
So, how does the GISS dataset, as of March 31, 2016, compare against a newer climate model, specifically, the IPCC's modern CMIP5 model using the supposed business-as-usual greenhouse gas scenario (RCP8.5)?
The adjacent chart tells the story, but we add some more content below:
The current El Niño appears to have peaked (maybe not, though) with a strong and rapid rising of GISS global anomalies over the 6-month period ending in March
The 6-month surge in anomalies placed the Feb. and Mar. observations above the modeloutput
Despite this huge 6-month surge, the GISS linear trend is still well below the model's simulated linear trend since 1988
Despite this huge 6-month surge, the 3-year (36-month) simple GISS moving anomaly average remains well below what the CMIP5 climate model produces for the same 3-year period
The sharp uptick of the blue GISS 3-year moving average, after 2012, reveals the power of this recent El Niño on global temperatures
The 2013 to mid-2016 slow build-up of the current El Niño peak reveals its contribution to warming as the arithmetic mean of the anomalies stepped up considerably (see on the chart: the black dashed lines represent the anomaly arithmetic means for the periods 2000-2012 and 2013-2016/March - note the shift up)
The stall (i.e. the 'Pause', the 'Hiatus') in significant global warming can be seen, both in the 3-year GISS moving average and in the underlying anomalies during the 2000s, prior to the 2013 uptick that leads into the powerful El Niño
The December 2012 anomaly was only 0.05 degree higher than the December 1999 anomaly - that meager five one-hundredths increase is indicative of the lengthy 'Pause' that occurred
Speaking of the current El Niño (and prior El Niños and La Niñas): "What goes up up must.....?"
The advanced climate model output clearly misses all the big extremes and wide variations of observed global temperatures, including this El Niño's recent incredible burst of warming
Per the official NOAA definition of the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), it has now been 48 periods (a period being 3 months) since the last La Niña ended in early 2012
Since the beginning of 1988 (339 months thru March 2016), 23% of the 3-month periods have been a La Niña condition versus 24% for El Niño conditions
At 13 periods in length, this El Niño is rather long-in-the-tooth compared to most since January 1988
After a strong and long El Niño, it is common for the ONI Index to reverse directions, sometimes dramatically (i.e. a strong La Niña)
Whether its the old NASA computer model simulations or the newer variety of IPCC climate models, Hansen's 1988 prediction of rapidly accelerating and dangerous global warming from human CO2, and other greenhouse gases, has done poorly in comparison to actual observed temps.
Although the recent spike in global temperatures from the current El Niño may provide some AGW alarmist bragging rights ("see, that clock is accurate"), it is highly probable the recent 6-month surge is a very temporary spike, entirely due to the natural ENSO phenomenon that climate models are incapable of predicting.
In fact, when viewing the future projections from the CMIP5 model, one sees the exact same pattern as above - a monotonous upward saw-tooth pattern of small ups and downs, completely unlike the chaotic conditions of real-world climate that is produced by all the conflicting natural feedback forces.
And the reversal from the current temp spike could well lead to another 'Pause' in any significant warming. If that happens, it will build on the growing consensus that climate models can't accurately predict squat, and should not be relied upon by policymakers for any reason - good for research but really terrible for reality-based policy.
Note: James Hansen's 1988 testimony took place in June 1998; this comparison used January 1988 as the starting point. The RCP8.5 scenario is considered by the majority of scientists seeking global warming research grants as the business-as-usual scenario. The climate model anomaly output for the CMIP5 RCP8.5 was adjusted to match the January 1988 anomaly for the NASA/GISS global dataset. Both the RCP8.5 and GISS dataset anomalies used in above chart were calculated by KNMI using the 1981-2010 span as the baseline. Both the model and observed datasets were downloaded after the baseline was chosen. Excel was used to plot chart and calculate all figures, including the linear trends and 3-year moving averages.
Doomsday climate models have been programmed to simulate greater ocean acidification levels as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 from human emissions.
Simply stated, this predicted dangerous "acidification" is hypothesized to make the waters uninhabitable for most marine life.
And for this to become a reality, it means that a demonstrable and consistent decline in sea/ocean pH levels should be evident since the beginning of the industrial age.
In fact, as this study indicates, researchers are finding it exceedingly difficult to locate ocean/sea waters that exhibit a dangerous decline in pH values. In addition, as this chart shows (click on chart to enlarge), any slight change in pH from human sources is being swamped, multiple times, by natures own unpredictable wide variability.
A group of scientists who researched past climate conditions near the coast of Japan made an interesting discovery.
As the article reports, the climate in that area has not experienced any of the hypothetical CO2-caused warming that "experts" claim is global, extreme and accelerating.
The chart associated with the peer-reviewed study makes it pretty clear that dangerous and unprecedented warming is absent from this part of the world.
The study's authors used tree-ring samples from Japan and Russia. Their proxy reconstruction even has a fitted trend (see red curve) that suggests temperatures there seem cyclical and being driven by natural cyclical forces. Those are thought to include ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings. These proxies usually come from widely scattered locations, with probably a rather sparse number of samples. In addition, tree rings don't provide a daily or monthly climate recording, unlike thermometer instruments. Yet, at the end of the day, scientists can produce a temperature record and trends over extended periods from an exceptionally low minimum of datapoints, and then their results are widely accepted by the climate science community.
Sometimes one wonders about these studies.
That said, these scientists identified another region of the world where dangerous and extreme warming rates are AWOL.
Recently, multiple outlets chose to report to their readers and viewers that February 2016 temperatures were "astronomical" and "strange." Yet for a few hundred million people living in two of the leading industrial/consumer nations of the world, the February temperatures were definitely not astronomical, nor strange.
US February Temps (click on)
UK February Temps (click on)
From the U.S. and UK climate agencies, the above two charts plot the absolute temperature levels for the respective countries over the most recent 20 years, plus the global CO2 levels for February.
In the U.S., the February temperature was warm, but not exceptional; and not even the warmest February, especially when put into the context of 5% error bars.
In the UK, the populace experienced February temperatures that were rather well below average for the last 20 years.
As others have noted, the media frenzy regarding "astronomical" represent just more absurdities from alarmist advocacy by "journalists."
Obviously, the two above charts reveal the ludicrous terminology "astronomical" is not really global. Most of any "strange" surface warming likely was generated in regions of the world where there exists an exceptional sparsity of thermometers - in other words, probably the warmest surface regions were based on a given climate agency's strange-simulations.
And it would seem that continuously rising CO2 levels have had little influence on February temperatures in these industrialized countries. As the majority of experts agree, any high February 2016 regional surface and atmospheric temperatures were the direct result of a natural weather El Nino phenomenon in the the Pacific.
Finally, for those interested in the linear trends for both charts, the U.S. February temperatures are cooling at a robust -15.2°F per century pace; the UK February temps are no slacker as they are cooling at -7.2°C per century rate. Indeed, in the face of huge CO2 emissions, both the UK and the U.S. over the last 20 years exhibit a significant deceleration of temperature change warming.
Strange, does the all-powerful CO2 just ignore months starting with 'F'?
Note: Source of US and UK absolute February temperatures; source of February CO2 levels. Excel used to plot the line and bar charts and means; built-in Excel chart function for 5% error bars displayed on charts and linear trends calculated. Warning: linear trends should not be interpreted as a prediction(s).
The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.
Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.
Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.
Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.
[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]
Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.
Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.
Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.
This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses.
Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).
Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.
How can this be one might ask?
Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.
Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.
The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.
The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.
Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.
This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.
In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)
As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.
Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.
Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.
Recently, RSS satellite scientists decided they needed to proactively adjust atmospheric temperatures in order to rid the world of the widely reported global warming hiatus. It's a pause of insignificant warming that has existed since the major El Niño of 1998 that the 2015 El Niño recently stopped.
Thus, they produced a new study refuting their previous reported satellite temperature measurements for the mid-troposphere going back to 1979.
For the period from 1979 to 1997 (see left chart), these scientists saw little need for major adjustments to their earlier RSS dataset. Yet for the global warming pause period stretching from 1998 to 2014, significant adjustments (see right chart) apparently had to be made, stat.
The charts comparing the RSS old and new datasets of monthly observations includes the plot of simple 5-year averages (60 months). The obvious RSS cherry-picked adjustments of the post-1998 period versus the earlier period is clarified by the presentation of the 'old' and 'new' 5-year averages.
So, Carl Mears of RSS chose a specific start point and a specific endpoint to apply significant man-made adjustments to, which is clearly a blatant cherry-picked fabrication to produce a desired politically correct "empirical" objective, no?
It would seem this is politically correct anti-science at its worst on bold exhibit by RSS.
(And if you don't believe RSS is a politically correct, anti-science outfit, then you might not be aware that they refer to their science critics as 'denialists', a premeditated slander.)
The end result?
The study now identifies a higher global warming trend that they were previously unable to find with the best satellite technology available as a resource. Of course, for their new research, they are still using the same technology - go fabricate figure.
And there is more to come of this style of RSS "science" with the upcoming release of their new lower troposphere dataset.
Further analysis of the new RSS "empirical" evidence is discussed here, here, here, and here.
Additional past examples of clear temperature fabrications supporting the dogmatic religion of the climate alarmism anti-science cult.
Note: Excel used to plot the RSS v3.3 and v4.0 mid-troposphere datasets, including the 60-month averages.
The short version: NOAA's latest empirical evidence reveals that last 25 year period of global warming is not exceptional, nor unprecedented. Unexpectedly, NOAA's own evidence debunks their own global warming propaganda that they claim is fact.
Yes, the warming isn't exceptional but the irony certainly is.
NOAA is well known to aggressively push the misleading myth of a dangerous modern warming rate from CO2, and that this rapid warming can only be man-made, not a result of natural forces.
Yet its own temperature dataset proves past natural global warming rates of earlier periods are similar and as powerful.
And of course, NOAA always conveniently forgets about the substantial warming and climate change periods of the historical and geological past, which far exceed what NOAA has reported over the last 25 years.
Moving on to the long version of this analysis.....
(click on any chart to enlarge)
The long version: Unprecedented modern warming? A simple factcheck of NOAA's temp information proves otherwise.
With a multitude of politicos, greens, activists, pundits, journalists, and wildly uninformed celebrities jointly wringing their hands over 2015 being the hottest ever, it's beyond empirical doubt that the rate of the last 25 years of warming is not unique.
Yes, in a nutshell, it's warmer today than 25 years ago, but that's to be expected due to the 150+ year natural rebound in temperatures since the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
Putting aside the overused "hottest" adjective, does NOAA's empirical measurement prove that modern warming is significantly different than past natural warming? Have the last 25 years warmed a quantifiably greater amount than prior periods?
To the charts of NOAA empirical evidence to compare two 25-year climate periods of global warming.
Chart #1: For ease of comparison, the earlier 20th century monthly anomaly sub-dataset was offset so as to start at exactly the same anomaly point as the modern sub-dataset. When that is done, it is easier to visually match the similarities/differences of the two warming periods.
Despite their obvious differences in anomaly variation, these two distinct periods reflect similar outcomes over their respective 25 years. Even though the earlier 20th century period (1919 to 1943) experienced little in the way of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, its monthly warming anomaly increase is almost a perfect match to the last 25 years, ending 2015.
The chart's fitted trends (2nd order polynomial) reveal the earlier period with a closing warming rate that is accelerating away from the modern fitted trend.
Chart #2 plots the calculated linear trends for both 25-year periods. The difference in 'per century' trends is rather minuscule, especially when considering the massive greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1950. Objectively, the small trend increase of +0.40 degrees per century over the last 25 years is well within known natural variation.
Clearly, any warming impact of CO2 emissions has barely surpassed the per century trend produced by natural climatic forces from 1919-1943. Based on this empirical evidence, a robust conclusion would be that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is exceptionally insignificant.
Chart #3 compares the 5-year average warming for each period, using the same starting anomaly point. From the start, the ‘Modern’ 5-yr average rises much faster; but in an exceptional (dare we say "unprecedented") spurt, the ‘Earlier’ period 5-yr average closes the gap to a mere +0.03 degree warming difference at the end of 25 years.
Based on that tiny difference, one can fairly surmise that the huge CO2 emissions production over the last 25 years has not distinguished itself as climatically significant versus natural variation.
And it is interesting (and somewhat unexpected) that both the ‘Earlier’ and ‘Modern' periods had extended pauses, which are noted on the chart #3.
Chart #4 depicts the cumulative temperature change for the full 25 years (300 months) ending in 1943 and 2015; plus, their respective changes in CO2 levels. Per NOAA’s own empirical dataset, the earlier 20th century warming cumulative amount was actually greater than the modern era period ending in December 2015 — and remember, the December 2015 temperatures anomaly just had an incredible surge due to the current El Niño peak.
In conclusion, as stated in the first paragraph, modern warming over the last 25 years is not exceptional, nor unprecedented in spite of the gigantic accumulation of atmospheric CO2 emissions during the fossil fuel era. Based on real world climate and the actual evidence, simulated predictions of future dangerous warming remain without any scientific substance.
Notes: The period of 1919-1943 was chosen for analysis and comparison due to its visual pattern similarities to the last 25 years ending December 2015. Source of NOAA global temperature dataset; modern and historical CO2 datasets. Excel was used to plot and calculate trends/averages for all charts. Chart#1 had 1919-1943 anomaly plot adjusted to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 period; chart#2 linear trends are based off plots of chart#1; chart#3 uses 5-year averages calculated from each period's anomaly dataset and then the 1919-1943 5yr average was adjusted (i.e. offset) to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 5yr average; chart#4 cumulative differences calculation: the December 31, 1943 anomaly minus the December 31, 1918 anomaly and the December 31, 2015 anomaly minus the December 31, 1990 anomaly (both calculations covering a full 300 months).
Empirical evidence is always a good disinfectant for doomsday fears and conspiracy theories. And it's no different for the exuberant, catastrophic hyperbole, irrational and anti-science prognostications being pronounced on a daily basis regarding global warming.
The below charts of empirical evidence are another 'bolus' of disinfectant for the climate change hyperbole - hyperbole that is pushing both climate science research and debate to the ludicrous, for example.
Chart #1 (click on any chart to enlarge)
Chart #1 is one that will never be shown by the establishment climate science community, nor by the climate-doomsday alarmists.
The chart plots the absolute global averages for both surfaces and atmospheric temperatures since the major 1998 El Niño peak. It is a peak-to-peak chart through December 2015 that reveals absolute global temperatures to be on a fairly stable path over the last 18 years.
Global temperatures move up and down in a narrow band, which is why the rolling 5-year averages are essentially flat. This stability has occurred in spite of the large increase in CO2 levels (see black dots on chart) during the same time frame.
Chart #2 is a plot of the same time period but using the familiar temperature anomalies instead of absolute temperatures.
Climate scientists and alarmists strongly favor anomalies for their lack of context. With anomalies, the public sees frightening large temperature spikes without realizing that real-world temperatures, while extremely variable, rarely remain outside a very narrow climate range - anomalies don't reveal the narrow range context that the absolutes show in Chart #1.
It's important to remember that in everyday life the public depends on the reporting of absolute temperatures. For example, the TV weather announcer would provide the following style of summation: "tomorrow will range from a cool of 45 degrees in the morning to a high of 73 degrees by late afternoon" - they don't state that tomorrow's temperatures will have an anomaly of +0.03 degree over the average baseline by late afternoon.
Simply stated, they use absolutes when reporting to the public, not meaningless anomalies. The absolute temperature degrees provide valuable context that allows the public, be they urban commuters, regional bureaucrats or rural farmers, to make informed and rational decisions.
With that said, it is certainly true that anomalies are invaluable for research, but for scientists to employ them for communications with the general public is in a reality a form of lying by context-omission.
By avoiding the use of absolute temperatures, the establishment can thus produce the desired agenda narrative, in a context vacuum, that our world is "rapidly warming" in order to persuade the public of favored energy/taxation policies.
But as this series of charts reveal, the context provided by the absolute temperatures is critically important to determining if the "rapidly warming" doomsday fears are rational and contextually evidence-based.
Charts #3 (absolutes) and #4 (anomalies) are plots of the same surface and atmospheric temperature datasets but for a different period: 1880 through 2015.
Charts #5 and #6 are more of the same, except the plots start at January 1979, the first full year of satellite temperature measurements and empirical 24/7 global measurement evidence - 37 years, as of the end of 2015.
With that long introduction out of the way, what do these 6 charts tell the policymakers, the taxpayers and the general public?
First, atmospheric CO2 levels have been climbing, relentlessly.
Second, the NOAA surface temperature dataset indicates that the globe has been steadily warming since 1880, but in a sporadic fashion.
The long-term warming trend since the Little Ice Age amounts to +0.7C degrees/century, per NOAA. The shorter term surface warming since 1998 has been at a rate of +1.4C/century; and the atmosphere has actually cooled at a -0.1C/century rate since 1998.
Third, climate change and its variation, as represented by global temperatures in Chart #4, is evident since the first decade of observations. Climate change 'has', and 'is', and 'will' happen - it is a natural phenomenon that happens.
Fourth, although the satellite evidence clearly indicates that the atmosphere has warmed since 1979, that warming has stalled since the 1998 peak - Chart #2's 5-year average for the RSS dataset vividly shows the 'Pause/Hiatus/Stall', equal to a cooling rate of -0.1/century.
Both the surface and atmospheric actual temperature changes are significantly below the estimates predicted due to the large CO2 increases.
And this fourth observation is especially critical.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis states the greenhouse emissions will warm the lower atmosphere, which will then result in a subsequent warming of Earth's surface. Yet, since 1998 the surface has warmed (more on that surface "warming" here and here) while the atmosphere had not warmed at all through 2015 - this is a major AGW hypothesis disconnect.
In addition, the AGW hypothesis assumes that increasing greenhouse gases will cause the triggering of major positive feedbacks that in turn will cause dangerous, accelerated warming in the atmosphere and then the surface. In reality, the "dangerous, accelerated warming" has not taken place, anywhere.
Ergo, CO2 emissions are not resulting in the "consensus" predicted positive feedbacks.
Since there is no evidence of the doomsday positive feedback, which the climate experts and their computer models assume, the predictions of doomsday climate catastrophes actually remain without a sliver of requisite empirical evidence or scientific proof.
Notes: Datasets used: NOAA; RSS; CO2-modern; CO2-proxy. Excel was used to plot charts from the government's own climate data.
Even with the strong surge in global temperatures from the current El Niño and from the surge of 2015 global warming exaggeration and fabrication (here, here and here), there remains the strange case of establishment climate science models failing to meet expected outcomes.
Case in point. This chart replicates the famous climate model output presented to Congress and the world in 1988 by James Hansen, the then chief climatologist of the NASA/GISS climate research unit. (Here is an image of the original chart.)
The climate model predicted annual temperature changes would follow the bright green curve if greenhouse gases (GHGs) were not curtailed. GHGs include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride - the latter 3 are known as fluorinated greenhouse gases.
The orange curve represents the predicted annual temperature changes if the GHG growth rate were reduced over time.
The chart's cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted annual temperature changes if GHGs were curtailed by governmental polices and regulations so that year 2000 and beyond had a net growth rate equal to zero.
From the Hansen 1998 testimony, there is this statement:
"We have considered cases ranging from business as usual [BAU], which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
From the 1988 Hansen peer-reviewed article that supports his testimony, there is this statement:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' [chart's green curve] assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' [chart's orange curve] has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' [chart's cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
So.....since NASA's top climate expert's testimony, what has happened with the GHG growth and growth rates?
From a recent U.S. EPA report on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, there is the following:
"Global non-CO2 emissions are projected to increase significantly between 2005 and 2030 unless further actions are taken to reduce emissions...total emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have nonetheless increased."
From the latest IPCC AR5 climate report, we know the following about GHGs (a synopsis here):
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
In addition, the combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Regarding fossil fuel CO2 emissions, specifically (CO2 data here): NASA and Hansen's 'BAU' Scenario A was proposed at a time when CO2 emissions were growing: since 1972, the 15 years ending 1987 the world emitted 285 billion tonnes of CO2. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.2% per year for those 15 years prior to Hansen's 1988 testimony.
In contrast, for the 15 years ending 2014, the world has emitted a total of 467 billion tonnes - that is growth some 1.6 times greater than Hansen's 'BAU'. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.9% per year for the period since 1999.
Without any doubt, both empirically and objectively, NASA's Hansen's projected GHG emissions for 'Scenario A' has easily been exceeded since his testimony in 1988. To state otherwise is a falsehood, categorically.
Now, back to the above chart.
For the year 2015, NASA's model predictions had temperature change for all 3 scenarios declining. Of course, we now know the exact opposite took place with the sharp increase in 2015 global temps.
It is important to note that since the 1988 testimony, the NASA climate predictions have very rarely been correct regarding annual temperature changes. (NASA is not an exception, though - all climate computer models and experts suffer the same level of failure.)
For what it's worth, the chart also shows the 2016 predictions: there is continuing decline for Scenarios B & C, but a sharp spike up for Scenario A to a record calendar year anomaly level.
While global warming alarmists are celebrating 2015 as the "warmest" year ever, the climate model failures clearly point to the absurdity of focusing on peak or trough moments as indicators of informed expertise. Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.
Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3-year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3-year averages remove the focus from peaks/troughs.
As can be seen, 3-year averages of the GISS and HC4 datasets depict the last 3-year average increase due to the El Niño conditions, and those questionable man-made factors.
Be that as it may, the GISS and HC4 averages still remain closer to the realm of NASA's Scenario C range. As a reminder, the Scenario C predictions are a result of net zero GHG emissions simulated to have started in year 2000, which is yet another galaxy away from reality.
In conclusion, some relevant takeaways on climate models:
1. At this point, now close to 3 decades after NASA's testimony, one can safely surmise that expert climate models can't predict squat. The climate is a chaotic complex that defies even the most sophisticated and powerful forecasting tools.
2. GHG emissions have far surpassed the 1988 "world-will-soon-end" BAU construct - a construct that many alarmists still believe. Yet the predicted positive feedback from BAU has not occurred and thus runaway global warming is, without question, AWOL.
3. The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming/cooling that is due to natural forces. The models were designed to purposefully rely on greenhouse gas forcings as their major causal factor, while diminishing natural climate impacts. It's no wonder that climate models remain on a fail path.
4. Based on the model outputs from 1960 to the present, policymakers and the public would be better served by rejecting the alarmist scenarios A and B; instead, moving forward, base all adaption and mitigation policies on Scenario 'C', which would likely produce better outcomes with superior allocation of scarce resources.
The climate models definitely have their important place in the climate researcher's toolbox. They are best suited to advance science's better understanding of our world, but their climate predictions, forecasts and prognostications should never be relied on - they are unreliable and inaccurate.
Update h/t: Video of climate scientist making the same point about climate model failure before a congressional committee on Feb 2, 2016:
A recent letter from 300 scientists is requesting that Congress assure that the Data Quality Act is complied with, which NOAA has not done regarding both the U.S. and global empirical temperature observations.
When 300 scientists put their name and reputations on the line criticizing NOAA, it can be assumed that the issue is one of significance and importance to science.
And this issue is now coming to a head after 7+ years of both NOAA and NASA blatantly adjusting historical temperature measurement records on a continual basis.
In essence, these two climate research agencies have purposefully cooled the past; and then warmed the modern temperatures in an effort to make global warming seem more severe than actually has taken place since the Little Ice Age. (See here a recent example of NOAA's adjustment handiwork.)
Their combined adjustment "methodology" has certainly mislead the public and policymakers, which has added to the growing mistrust that the public has for politicians, scientists and bureaucrats.
The group of charts above reveals the gross manipulation of temperatures that strongly indicates an anti-science motivation to meet the current administration's political needs.
Charts #1 & #2 show two examples of the constant adjustments by both NOAA and NASA. These examples show the number of adjusting steps taken since 2008 to cool past historical temperatures and the number of steps to raise a modern month's temperature.
Charts #3 & #4 show the total amount of adjustments by month since 1880 for NOAA and NASA. The fabricated warming of modern temps and cooling of pre-modern temps is more than obvious - it is unequivocally blatant and an unprecedented level of science tampering.
All of these charts were compiled by Ole Humlum, a well-known university scientist/professor from Norway who publishes peer-reviewed climate change research. Go to his 'Climate4You' site to access a large volume of valuable climate information.
The extended 'pause' appears to have finally rattled the scientists at NOAA. They seemingly chose to robustly adjust thousands of past monthly temperature observations to make sure the embarrassing pause would be no longer.
The adjacent chart depicts the global annual temperature anomalies computed from the monthly NOAA dataset reported in 2014 (orange columns); and the red columns represent the new annual anomalies after NOAA's massive 2015 revisions.
By slightly adjusting down the past reported temperatures for years 2000-2003, and then by adjusting up years 2005-2014, NOAA was able to almost double the warming trend (i.e. slope of linear trend-line) for the 15 years ending in 2014.
To put the NOAA adjustments in scientific perspective, the chart also includes the satellite reported annual temperature anomalies for the same periods. Note for the satellite columns that only 3 of the 15 years (2012, 2013 and 2014) had minor adjustments of 0.01 each. As a result, the satellite temperature trend-lines remain flat for both 2014 and 2015.
One can assume that the RSS scientists avoided the temptation to massively adjust the satellite temperature dataset just to achieve desired political/activist objectives; thus, the 'pause' in the lower atmosphere continues and empirical science was not tarnished.
Unfortunately, NOAA has succumbed, allowing the bureaucracy to put the political cart before the scientific horse - the AGW hypothesis clearly predicts that the lower atmosphere has to warm first and at a faster pace than surface temperatures. The empirical evidence of the pause has not supported the prediction of a severely warming atmosphere for almost two decades now.
At this point in time, the satellite empirical evidence is significantly more trustworthy as it does not suffer from the constant monthly historical revisions that both NOAA and NASA perform on their respective temperature datasets.
Notes: Calendar year (annual) anomalies were computed using Excel from the RSS satellite 2015 year-end monthly dataset and NOAA's 2015 year-end monthly dataset.
The lower troposphere represents that layer of the atmosphere which is predicted to first experience the positive feedback of accelerated warming due to human greenhouse gases.
Recently, NOAA and NASA held a global warming presentation, which included various charts, and an unexpected admission that the atmosphere was not as warm as previous El Niño years.
An essential general review of the presentation can be found here.
The troposphere's lack of achieving the "warmest" year label was confirmed by the NOAA/NASA analysis of the relevant balloon and satellite datasets. And the adjacent chart is a combination from the NOAA/NASA presentation, with one chart being superimposed atop the other.
Other than a normal atmospheric response to the latest large El Niño temperature surge, the chart documents the continued lack of dangerous positive feedback warming.
As the preponderance of scientific studies and reports have proven, our current modern warming is not unprecedented. Significant warming has taken place quite often in the past, as well as climatic cooling.
"The 600-year reconstructed record -- dating back to AD 1392. As indicated, the record shows pronounced periods of subdecadal to multidecadal variability. Specifically, Elbert et al. note the presence of cold phases "during parts of the Little Ice Age (16th and 18th centuries) and in the beginning of the 20th century." In contrast, they state that warm phases persisted "in the 15th century, around AD 1600 and in the 19th century," the latter of which they characterized as the "most prominent" of the entire record."
In a prior posting, the empirical evidence from a group of high quality tidal gauge locations revealed the long-term acceleration and deceleration of sea levels.
Overall, the last 30 years exhibited a trend of only 9-10 inches per century - certainly not a biggie even worthy of a climate-doomsday claim. This trend has been exceeded in the past, prior to the accumulation of high levels of CO2 gases in the atmosphere.
Despite this known evidence, over the last decade and a half much has been made of the claim that CO2 emissions were causing the seas to rise ever faster and would soon result in a literal swamping of Pacific islands.
But what does the actual non-tidal gauge empirical evidence say about the sea rise in the Pacific?
A. Map of Pacific sea height coordinates
B. Sea height anomalies & trends
C. 3-yr moving avgs of sea heights
D. Fitted trends Pacific island sea heights
(click on any image to enlarge)
Using the satellite observations, compiled by the leading sea level research group's site, one can download sea surface height anomalies from the beginning of the 21st century. This empirical evidence should clarify if civilization's massive CO2 emissions over the last 15+ years have caused a dangerous sea rise surge of ever higher waves.
And it does clarify.
Image 'A' above shows 32 ocean locations that were downloaded for this analysis. (There are four corner locations for each island region.)
Image 'B' contains the plots of each island region's average sea surface anomalies (monthly increase/decrease). While the sea heights can very significantly, the overall trend from the average anomalies(see dark green curve) is an underwhelming +1.8 mm/year - that translates to per century trend of 7.2 inches/century (the bright red trend line).
Image 'C' is the 3-year (36-mth) simple moving averages from the same anomaly datasets of 'B'. Again, the 3-year trends show variation, but for the most part, within a tight band.
Image 'D' is a plot of the datasets' fitted trends, which better show the increase/decrease cycle of the anomalies, which is difficult to discern from image 'B'. These trends reveal a similar up/down pattern that was evident in the prior analysis of the longer record from the tidal gauges.
The empirical evidence is rather convincing when it comes to a lack of rapidly rising sea heights around Pacific islands and atolls.
With that said, there indeed may be certain Pacific regions and specific island situations that are experiencing a greater acceleration of rising sea levels. But one would be hard-pressed to claim a unique location (or several) represents the result of CO2-induced global climate change when scientific measurement-reality obviously indicates accelerating, doomsday sea level rise is not a global phenomenon.
Notes: Download Excel spreadsheet with sea height anomaly datasets (and comments) for these 8 island regions: Hawaii, Tuvalu, Midway, Nauru, Wake, Tahiti, Norwalk and Marshall. Plots and trends produced from a January 2000 start date in order to identify the 21st century sea level rise conditions versus the claims.
Across the globe there exist only a handful of tide gauge station records available that exceed 100 years in length, and that also report at least 90% of the monthly records over the last 100 years.
Using the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database, one can identify 15 gauge sites that are exemplary in record keeping. In addition, all 15 have records through 2013, with the majority (12) having records through 2014.
The 15 sites with a long history of gauge readings are listed on the adjacent chart. The chart also includes an average of all 15 and a plot of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The chart plots the per century trends, by month, based on moving 30-year (360-month) periods.
The smooth trend curves plotted are fitted, providing a visual as to where sea level acceleration and deceleration have been, and indicate where they might be going. [Ed: Using trends for predictive purposes is not recommended.]
The purplish (mauve) smooth curve is the average of all moving per century trends for the 15 sites; the monthly datapoints for the average of all is depicted also (see the variable mauve plot).
What do the mauve trend curve and mauve monthly datapoint plot reveal?
For the average of the world's longest and most complete sea level records, there has been relatively small variation in sea level trends calculated from the moving 30-year periods.
The greatest sea rise trend took place at the 30-year period ending December 1952 - a trend rise of 10.6 inches per century.
The lowest trend happened in May 1977 - an increase of 4.1 inches per century.
The 100-year trend, as of the end of 2013, was 9.5 inches per century for all 15 sites.
For the 12 sites reporting records through December 2014, the rise trend was 9.1 inches per century.
Putting it into the human-caused 'climate change' context, this global mean of long-term sea level trend has clearly not been a function of the rapidly rising CO2 levels (see chart's plot of moving 360-month average of atmospheric CO2 levels).
In summary, the overall sea level rise trend has been rather unimpressive, and slightly meandering back and forth since the early 1940s, while CO2 levels have exhibited a seemingly exponential growth. At the end of 2014, the 30-year trend amounted to a 2.3 to 2.5 mm (9 to 10 inches) increase per year.
The chart also reveals the two outliers of the group: Stockholm and Galveston, Texas. They both show a distinct cycle of ups and downs with no obvious relation to CO2 levels. (Stockholm's gauge has recorded a declining sea level trend.....at -14.3 inches per century, as of the end of 2014.)
For the other 13 gauge sites, the chart only depicts the smoothed fitted trends of sea level rise using the 30-year periods. Each site's trend exhibits a slightly different cyclical pattern cycle from others but most stay within a fairly narrow range over the decades. (See monthly per century trends plotted without the smooth fitted curves.)
Finally, the chart's two dashed fitted curves, red and blue, represent opposite trend directions at the end of 2013 - they are San Francisco and Freemantle, Australia. These two sites would suggest that a unified, in-sync global sea level change is not a reality.
The above chart from the 15 sites indicates a current per century trend of 2.2-2.5 mm/year increase in mean sea levels, with the 1950's having a peak trend of approximately 2.7 mm/year (0.11 inches/yr). The raw sea level records when averaged, from beginning to end for the 101 years of records, calculates to an average site increase of 2.05 mm/year (0.08 inches/yr).
The current rate of sea level rise is not unusual versus the late 1940's and early 50's, which is an era prior to the huge increase in consumer/industrial CO2 emissions. And certainly this chart shows ancient sea level increases that were multiple times larger and faster than those observed with our modern climate.
This adjacent sea level infographic from a 2015 study published in the Sciencejournal confirms that sea levels were significantly higher in the pre-history than our current levels.
When comparing the ancient past with the modern 15-site gauge per century trend of the last 30 years, it would take some 2,500 years to reach the 6-meter higher sea levels recorded approximately 125,000 years ago at a much lower CO2 level.
And to reach a more modest 1-meter sea level increase would take approximately 400+ years, per today's sea level trends.
**(Infographic's explanation: Peak global mean temperature, atmospheric CO2, maximum global mean sea level (GMSL), and source(s) of meltwater. Light blue shading indicates uncertainty of GMSL maximum. Red pie charts over Greenland and Antarctica denote fraction (not location) of ice retreat.)
The modern climate alarmism fears of the soon-to-be flooding of coastal regions, which would unleash a horde of climate refugees, is entirely without scientific merit, per the modern dataset records and the expert research done on the pre-history sea levels and trends.
Notes: Excel was used to calculate and plot the moving sea level per century curves and fitted trends (Excel slope function produced trends based on moving 360-month periods for each month in the dataset; then converted to per century trends (inches) for each month). Excel also used to calculate averages and to sort dataset records to identify highest per century trends for each site. The smooth fitted trends are to the 6th order. The Key West, Florida dataset's first record was January 1913, thus all 15 site sea level calculations started at the same date; the first 30-year trend calculated occurred at the December 1942 dataset record - hence, the plotted trends in the top chart start with December 1942. PSMSL datasets were the source of all records used for the chart. Download raw sea level datasets in Excel spreadsheet for all 15 sites, from 1913 to 2014. The datasets chosen included those that had data at least through December 2013; had at least a 100 year record of monthly reporting; and, had at least a 90% reporting of all 1,012 months covering the 101 years. The 'youngest' dataset meeting the criteria, Key West, determined the 101-year span used.
December 15, 2015: The just finished Paris COP21 climate "Treaty" supposedly will stop global warming and climate change, so say those political soothsayers whom claim omnipotence over Mother Earth - claims that have an eerie similarity to those a century before when the elite politicos absurdly proclaimed to have stopped future wars.
Below are a dozen recent articles regarding the non-binding, non-enforcement, non-penalty "Treaty" to save the world. Click on any of the dozen to go to article's source.
As the state-of-the-art satellite technology shows (see chart), significant global warming since the early 2000’s has been nonexistent.
There has definitely been an extended ‘pause’ (aka the ‘Hiatus’ in science journals). The pause has generated some 60+ scientific explanations regarding its existence and persistence.
This has become a real problem for many proponents of dangerous global warming, which has recently pushed them into a stance of actually denying the 'pause'.
Empirically, since November 2000 the lower atmosphere temperature trend has actually been negative at a minus 0.12ºC per century trend. (The chart’s green curve is a 36-month average, which makes the pause even clearer to the casual observer.)
The chart also includes r-squared calculations, besides linear trends, that indicate a fairly weak 30-year relationship between CO2 and temperatures, which appears to have become a zero relationship over the last 15 years.
In review, the AGW theory is based on a CO2-induced warming of the lower atmosphere, at a rapid and accelerating warming rate - this being a result of the theory's speculative positive feedback loop.
As can be seen, the satellite empirical evidence after 30+ years does not readily support the climate-alarmist AGW theory, nor the doomsday predictions of global warming hell.
Although the satellites are considered the gold-standard for measuring and observing sea levels, hurricanes/typhoons, ozone holes, sea ice, atmospheric CO2 distribution, polar ice sheet masses and etc., the same 24/7 technology used to measure temperatures across the entire habitable world is now being ignored (i.e., denied) due to the above inconvenient evidence.
The adjacent chart pretty much makes a turkey mockery of accelerating global warming fears. It's simply not flying happening.
While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against "catastrophic" global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds' elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate-evil.
Like so many Thanksgivings of the past, those on the 'quest' have piously announced civilization's reaching its 'last chance' point of saving itself from climate doomsday. But all of these TurkeynadoSharknado-like prophecies that the end-is-near have proven to be pure anti-science fiction.
At some point, we can hope some sanity returns to the climate science anti-CO2 Quixote brotherhood of warriors. But in the meantime, what does the actual climate science say?
Well, this chart is just brutally frank: the fast growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (the black dots) have not exactly been the robust evil foe the elite establishment has fixated on.
As the chart depicts, the CO2 impact on either short (red curve) or long-term (pink curve) rapid global temperature acceleration appears to be non-existent versus the "consensus" predictions. And the blue-dash curve reveals the rather turkey-like impact on the 36-month average of absolute global temperatures.
Indeed, global temperatures have increased since 1950. But the scientific reality is that the chart confirms a steady global warming that has been taking place since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 1700s) - well before the influx of the giant CO2 emissions from the industrial/consumer era. The chart clearly shows a long history of frequent periods of rapidly increasing temperatures, then to be always followed by a significant deceleration.
Examine the chart's most recent period, from December 1996 through October 2015. The periods of both rapid temperature increases and decreases are evident, just as they existed since instrumental recording of temperatures first began.
The vast majority of climate analysis based on actual empirical evidence show similar results, whether in a global or regional context.
Terrified by global warming doomsday? Not so much anymore, it would seem.
Suffice it to say, Americans are no longer impressed by the claims of government and celebrity elites. Fully 97% now reject the unreal turkey-esque predictions of climate change disasters.
And the American public is not alone. The global masses join Americans in their low assessment of the elites' unscientific climate calamities.
As the public has learned, the empirical evidence supports neither the man-made climate change disaster narrative nor the CO2-reducing solutions proposed, which have been seriously debunked.
With all that said, foolish anti-science elites will continue to make preposterous claims and those exaggerated, attic-crazy predictions leading up to the soon to be Paris COP21 climate conference.
One last 'chance' - look at the chart, are you still terrified this Thanksgiving? How about that wacky college-aged, censorship-loving, millennial niece gnawing on that turkey wing next to you?
Note: Excel used to calculate the 3-year absolute temperature and CO2 level averages; also used to calculate the moving 36-month and 360-month per century acceleration/deceleration trends (Excel slope function) as depicted on chart; the absolute temps calculated using the HadCRUT4 month anomalies and NOAA's monthly global mean temperature estimates; and, the 3-year average beginning value for CO2 was offset to a zero starting place. Temperature sources used: here and here. CO2 sources used: here (March 1958-October 2015) and here (used annual historical levels for each month of the given year, from January 1850 to February 1958).
Government-funded scientists, the Green's anti-CO2 activists and the mainstream media-alarmists have all claimed that the current drought being suffered by the US west coast is the extreme climate change Americans have never experienced before.
They claim it is due to human CO2 emissions of the modern industrial and consumer civilization.
Yet severe droughts have been part and parcel of the world's climate since humans started recording severe weather events. Across the globe, and the US, there is no shortage of historical drought reports and other extreme climate conditions.
More specifically, as the images below attest, drought extremes in the US have been extensively documented by NOAA since the 1900s, with most taking place well before the global 350ppm CO2 atmospheric level was commonplace.
For a perspective, the October 2015 drought conditions (top-left image) have often been exceeded by some kick-ass October drought conditions in the past. (click on any image to enlarge)
Simply put, the climate has always been changing, impacting large geographical regions at any given time. As the scientific empirical evidence makes clear, a changing climate is not unusual, and most definitely is not solely due to human CO2 emissions.
For someone to claim otherwise is literally anti-scientific.
Note: Source of images from this NOAA site. During 1988, global CO2 emissions first cracked the 350ppm CO2 level. NOAA reports that the October 1988 reading was 349.08.
The climate change fear-mongering generated by government-related persons and agencies has recently reached peak levels, with claims that are a mixture of absurd and just plain silly when compared to the empirical scientific evidence.
Such claims include the meme that rising global CO2 has caused accelerating, rapid US warming; that droughts are destroying all of our food crops; that more frequent and stronger weather disasters from warmer temperatures are wreaking untold harm; that global warming will shorten/threaten US life spans; that ever expanding wildfires are consuming our forests; and etc., etc., etc.
(One indeed wonders why so many Americans can't wait to retire to the tropical and warmer climates that Hawaii, Florida, Arizona and S. California offer if warm temperatures are so harmful and deadly.)
There are even bizarre claims that bumblebees' tongues are shortening and pumpkin pies are at risk, both supposedly due to global warming.
With all that said, the U.S. has the best weather and climate measurement capabilities in the world, with observations from a wide geographical dispersion and a extensive range of micro-climates, be it tropical islands or Arctic tundra. The most extensive and complete empirical evidence comes from the continental U.S., which the vast majority of the American population resides.
Instead of believing the promoters of doomsday screams about every single impending weather event being the next civilization-busting disaster, or the journo/pundits' propensity to shout about the hottest hour, the hottest day, week, month, summer and/or hottest year stats (take your pick) ad nauseum, it might be best to reflect on what the American public has realized about long-term climate change doomsday from the empirical evidence - it's a very thin nothing-burger.
To the empirical evidence.
The adjacent chart depicts several long-term climate record trends of 10-year averages (US hurricane landfalls, forest fire acres, drought, precipitation, maximum and average temperatures). The chart also includes the following 10-year average trends: atmospheric CO2 levels; the U.S. corn yield; and, the U.S. life expectancy trend from decadal census information.
As can be seen, the CO2 growth trend has been truly remarkable, only exceeded by the exceptional trend for corn yields (by the way, other agricultural crops also possess exceptional yield trends). And the increasing life expectancy trend for Americans is none too shabby either.
In contrast, the charts reveal the truly unexceptional, unremarkable long-term trends for any climate/weather attribute previously predicted to worsen from the modern era's CO2-induced climate change.
These fitted curve trends have yawn-inducing characteristics, indicating CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is spectacularly not the powerful greenhouse gas emission that experts conjectured about.
Conclusion: Although short-term variation extremes in weather attributes and incidents can be large and at times awe-inspiring, they are not climate change. Long-term climate change since the Little Ice Age has been dominated by a very slow warming, which the chart's 'average' and 'maximum' temperature trends reveal. The long-term climate change across the continental U.S. as represented by the precipitation, hurricane landfall events and drought are much more difficult to discern from their respective fitted trends (objectively, they are rather climatically insignificant overall). Forest fire acres burned has had an uptick in recent years (for bureaucratic reasons) but is vastly below levels reached in the early 20th century. All in all, human CO2 combustion emissions are directly linked to the great agricultural prosperity and vastly improved well being of the American citizen over the past century, much to the chagrin of doomsday cultists - whether yesteryear's or today's.
In other words, the politicos and bureaucrats predictions of gloom, doom and disasters were wrong, significantly.
Notes: Excel used to produce chart's fitted 2nd order trends. Sources of datasets used for chart can be found by downloading this Excel spreadsheet from MS OneDrive. For the temperature, precipitation and drought (PHDI) curves, 9-month YTD through September measurements from NOAA were used. CO2 levels used for its trend curve represents the September ppm value for each year. Corn yields represent the 'commodity and market' year reported. Both corn and CO2 had beginning values set to '10' in order that they would fit on a '0' to '150' y-axis (did not affect linear trends of either). Hurricane US landfalls observations used represent a per year average from the given decade's count of events. Life expectancy data are U.S. decadal averages for female/male and all races.
As the site 'Not A Lot of People Know That' reports, extreme and severe rainfall (i.e. precipitation) trend has not increased in Holland, when viewed from a decadal perspective.
The adjacent chart depicts the distribution of the top 50 DeBilt, Holland rainfall events while atmospheric CO2 levels increased over the decades. (Go here to view maximum hourly precipitation incidents versus global cumulative CO2 emission tonnes since 1950.)
For the record, on any given hour during any given day, someplace in the world is likely to be experiencing an extreme weather event. But as this Holland dataset confirms, the actual empirical global and regional trends of a climatic shift of ever more severe weather events do not support the alarmists' predictions; the irrational fears of more frequent/larger weather disasters as a result of CO2 or global/regional "warming" is unjustified, per the scientific evidence.
And it is indisputable that hundreds of media outlets have extensively documentedover the past century that weather catastrophes have always been a normal climate occurrence, regardless of greenhouse gas emissions.
Note: 'C3' used monthly CO2 levels from NOAA and superimposed the CO2 curve on the above chart.
The climate doomsday-cult promoters at the Huffington Post and Climate Nexus did their usual thing, trying to convince the American public that Hurricane Joaquin was the result of global warming.
Of course, when the alarmists uttered these claims, they were based on the hurricane computer models that forecast Joaquin's path would strike the East Coast of the U.S. Fortunately for the coastal residents, the climate change doomsters were wrong, spectacularly.
Instead, as the adjacent chart clearly documents, those ocean waters have cooled since 1940, not warmed as predicted. Another case of 'those stubborn facts'.
In summary, the empirical evidence again confirms that climate simulations and computer models are very suspect regarding their capabilities at both short and long-term predictions/forecasts. Governing elites, bureaucrats and the public should absolutely not base any expensive policy-making decisions on these research tools.
Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC "experts" as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.
The graph's lack of both science creditability and statistical robustness eventually caused the UN's IPCC to throw in the towel and exclude it from future climate reports.
Climate research in recent years has confirmed that the hockey stick deserved the ash heap of bad paleo-science it now resides in.
This has again been proven in the latest study, which shows the non-existence of the 'hockey stick' and the rather similar (yet less) modern warming versus that of the Medieval Period. The study's summer temperature reconstruction is adjacent.
Per NOAA, the U.S. warming pause (aka the 'Hiatus') has now achieved a 19-year stall (see adjacent chart). In fact, a slight cooling has been the trend over this period.
Remember the predicted global warming by experts? The same "experts" who predicted that hurricanes would become stronger and more frequent as a result of the global warming - which also did not happen.
As the empirical climate datasets reveal, the predicted global warming has amounted to about nil for close to two decades. And because of this, the global warming scientists recently resorted to exceptional fabrications of temperature datasets to produce "warming" that disappears the 'Pause'.
Ginning up climate change fears in anticipation of the Paris 2015 COP21 climate travesty show seems to be the driving force behind the most recent wholesale fake-warming production.
Back to the included chart. As depicted, the 19-year pause includes not only the continental U.S. (at -0.4°F per century cooling) but also the states of Virginia and Maryland, both at -0.5°F per century cooling.
Why depict those two state's temperature trends?
Because those states surround the metropolitan District of Columbia where federal bureaucrats, U.S. elected representatives and administration officials pontificate about the rapid and dangerous "global warming". These elites live and work in the D.C. micro-climate warming bubble that is a direct result of federal taxpayer asphalt, steel, concrete and airports with very hot jet exhausts, which in combination have produced a rapidly warming urban heat island (UHI).
The NOAA scientific empirical evidence is rather clear and undeniable. For most Americans, global warming is not an issue and is definitely not impacting their daily lives.
But for a minority of governing elites, who obviously created a hostile warming micro-climate for their work environment, it has made them incapable of distinguishing the climate forest from the micro-climate trees, so-to-speak. Or, put another way, they can't discern the difference between climate reality and climate fantasy.
Hmmm....maybe the best solution for saving the elites from their own, self-created hostile and climate change triggering environment is to disperse the federal government offices and personnel across rural locations throughout the U.S.
Note: The per century temperature trends for the continental U.S, Maryland, Virginia and D.C. were produced using NOAA's 12-month temperature periods ending in the month of August, through August 2015. Source of NOAA data used. NOAA images (a Zip file) of chart's calculated per century trends used.
The much embarrassing 'Pause' continues to ignore the predictions of the wrong-way IPCC and government-funded climate "scientists" - you know, the "experts" who have been long predicting end-of-the-world global warming since the late 80's.
The adjacent chart reflects poorly on the "consensus" science that unequivocally states the human CO2 emissions must first increase the lower troposphere temperatures in order to warm the Earth. This violation of the sacrosanct climate-agenda physics has become a real hiatus head-scratcher for scientists and journalists making a living off the govt-approved orthodoxy.
Despite 'those stubborn facts', the elites - i.e. bureaucrats and politicians - of the U.N. and national governments continue plans to party-in-Paris come late November, without any regard to actual climate reality. The political 'Agenda' and climate COP21 show must go on regardless of inconvenient evidence-based science.
Obama's own NOAA climate division reports that the empirical evidence documents clear and sustained cooling trends for both Alaska and the continental U.S. for the past 16 years.
Yet, when not too busy taking selfies near Alaskan glaciers, Obama spent time to prophesize about dangerous "global warming," thus exhibiting either a deep ignorance of real climate science and facts or an amazing dishonesty that journalists allowed him to get away with.
It's a sad state of affairs when a president is this badly out of touch with the evidence-based science that his own administration's science agencies are reporting.
NOAA's Alaska/US evidence also supports the global warming 'pause' that has proven to be a major embarrassment for those proponents of climate-doomsday angst.
Global warming hysteria and fear-mongering, as expressed by the fringe green groups, progressive Democrats and the extremists of the Obama administration, are reaching a peak as November's Paris COP21 climate summit is approaching. But is the hysteria warranted?
Over and over again the public hears from UN and national government bureaucrats that global warming is rapidly becoming dangerous and accelerating faster than that experienced in the past due to human CO2 emissions. U.S. politicians of extreme left-wing persuasion seem to be especially enamored with over-the-top climate catastrophic predictions, which makes sense since they propose more taxes and regulations to control Americans and businesses and, of course, to "save-the-world," so they say.
Seriously, is the hysteria and draconian proposals to eliminate fossil fuels even close to being warranted? Should President Obama really be proposing that the U.S. follow unproven and potentially reckless energy and economic policies based on climate-cult doomsday prophecies?
Well, the adjacent chart provides 12 reasons why Obama's obsession and the hysteria of progressives are plainly absurd.
Look close - indeed there are at least 12 previous presidential terms that experienced global warming rates (a.k.a., acceleration) greater than anything experienced over the last 6.5 years of Obama's administration.
In fact, the majority of the greatest 5-year acceleration (i.e., the highest warming rates) took place prior to 1950 when CO2 emissions were a fraction of today's levels.
The politicos' global warming hysteria appears even more contrived and manipulative when examining acceleration using a moving 6.5 year average for the 5-year acceleration rates. On the chart, the black curve is the 6.5 year moving average since 1860.
(Why 6.5 years? Through June 2015, Obama's term in office covers 6.5 years - 78 months.)
Simply put, the black curve represents 1,868 datapoints for global warming acceleration, thus comparing Obama's length of term with those occupying the White House prior. Exactly 1,170 of the datapoints exceed the June 2015 datapoint of "rapid" warming that has so panicked this administration.
Needless to say, global warming from human CO2 emissions is an exceptional yawner, and is in no sense a current legitimate threat when viewed in the context of recent climate history.
That's a climate FactCheck and undeniable. And here's more proof that the current warming rate is unexceptional.
NOAA/NCDC has long been associated with fabricated global warming ..... in a way, they must aspire to be identified as the epitome of manipulative, anti-science methodologies.
From time to time, NOAA also exhibits the typical your-federal-govt-at-work "competence".
On their 'Climate-At-A-Glance' (CAG) web site, NOAA reports that the contiguous U.S. has been cooling at a rate of -0.6°F per century since January 1, 1994 (see pink rectangle on image). That's a 258-month period.
Surprise! Color me a skeptic.
Per the monthly absolute temperatures and anomalies that NOAA reports for the period from Jan 1994 to June 2015, there does not appear to be any obvious means to calculate a cooling trend. In fact, using the CAG supplied NOAA dataset for temperatures during that period, there is a warming trend of 1.68°F, calculated using Excel's slope function for a linear trend.
Indeed, from the same NOAA reported data, there is a U.S. cooling trend but it does not start until February 1996. Using either NOAA's reported 'Climate-At-A-Glance' absolutes or anomalies, that trend is a -2.28°F for the 19.4 year period (233 months).
The more recent reporting from NOAA is hardly an improvement - from 2010 thru June 2015 they are reporting a -44.33°F per century cooling trend. Ummm...I don't think so.
It's highly doubtful that NOAA will be on the airwaves anytime soon discussing a -44 degree cooling trend when they're required to scream "it's-the-hottest-ever" constantly.
Summary: "Ashville, we have a problem." Okay, is this a function of just a very poorly designed web page that simply misleads the public? Or, a reporting system with really bad quality control efforts? Or competence, maybe lack thereof? Or, a management team totally distracted by their political agenda priorities prior to Paris 2015? Or, yet another successful Chinese hack penetrating government "security"?
There is an anti-science political agenda that is driving governments to fabricate excess global warming that really does not exist.
When one listens carefully, the political agenda becomes obvious. And government-funded scientists certainly listen very carefully to their paymasters.
As a result, faux-science is pervasive.
Case in point: NOAA's bureaucracy "scientists" are seemingly dedicated to squeezing manufacturing new global warming from any and all past empirical measurements, every single month - literally.
Their quasi-religious green jihad against the historical climate records has just been well dissected and documented by Walter Dnes. The adjacent chart is his analysis, with some additions by 'C3' (bold green, red and cyan lines, chart text and title added to his original).
===> The 'C3' horizontal dark green line is placed at zero degree change; vertical red dashed lines represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of warming adjustments; and cyan vertical dashed lines periods represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of cooling adjustments.
As the chart depicts, from the 1880s thru the mid-1920s, the monthly temperature adjustments applied by NOAA appear to be somewhat random in regards to cooling and warming changes.
From approximately 1926 on though, NOAA's warming and cooling adjustments give all appearances of not being the least bit random, but specifically designed to make historically documented warming periods cooler (such as the extreme warming of 1930s) and the more recent warming of the last two decades - made to appear even greater than reported during real-time.
The most recent decades of non-random adjustments are clearly an attempt by agenda scientists to rid the NOAA global dataset of the very inconvenient and embarrassing 21st century 'pause', also called the 'hiatus.'
What many don't realize (i.e., politicians, policymakers and the public alike) is that NOAA adjusts the monthly historical climate records every single month. And within the next few days, NOAA will release a new historical dataset ending at June 2015, which will likely include some 80% of the monthly records back to 1880 being "adjusted" once again. And they will do the same for the July 2015 historical dataset.
The constant manipulation and adjusting of empirical measurements simply never ends - it's ad infinitum, déjà vu.
The global warming political agenda demands a convincing story, and the falsification is necessitated when nature does not cooperate with the global warming narrative.
Walter's article goes into much greater detail with many more charts - a definite read by those interested in faux-science perpetrated by govt types. But he has only dissected NOAA's fabrication adjustments from late 2010 and forward to the present. In reality, the fabrication of all temperature records started much earlier though, which can be seen here, here, here, here and here.
For the record, it's definitely not only the U.S. climate agencies that are knee-deep in the 'sɔıǝuɔǝ' cesspool of data falsification.
Note: For those wondering how 'science' was transformed to 'sɔıǝuɔǝ', it was created here.
Here's a chart that NOAA and other govt-funded global warming proponents are not about to advertise. Instead, rest assured, they will be cherry-picking the usual meme of hottest day or week or month or quarter and/or year to publicize.
But when longer periods are examined, those favored govt/media 'cherry-picks' start to look exceptionally lame in comparison.
For example, the NOAA web site produced this chart that allows analysis of average U.S. temperatures over 5-year periods (60-month periods). The chart starts in 1988 (5-years ending 1988) when NASA's chief global warming alarmist predicted (at a U.S. Senate hearing) that the U.S. would also suffer from the global warming trend with dire consequences.
As the chart reveals, the U.S. warmed thru June 1992; then cooled until end of June 1997; then significantly warmed thru June 2000; and has since experienced a cooling trend that stretches to June 30, 2015. Clarifying, from 2000-2015 covers a 16-year span, which indisputably shows a 'pause' in 5-year warming that NOAA correctly identifies as a cooling trend.
It's a cooling trend equaling 1.3°F per century. And not a single government sponsored climate expert, nor wildly expensive climate model, predicted such.
The major proponents of climate doomsday alarmism claim that the growth of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is causing a rapid growth of dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels.
But does the scientific empirical evidence support that claim?
In climate reality, not only is it a false claim, it is at best anti-science propaganda.
This chart plots the percent growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions versus the percent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1966. As can be observed, the emissions growth is on a strong declining trend whereas the atmospheric CO2 continues on its modestly increasing growth trend.
The R2 between the two depicted annual growth rate plots is an embarrassingly low 0.02 (zero comes to mind for some reason), which reflects an overall large negative trend of CO2 emissions percentage growth versus a small positive percentage growth trend for atmospheric CO2.
Question: If actual CO2 emission growth is a weak causal factor in atmospheric CO2 growth, then how exactly can it be a strong cause of dangerous "accelerating" growth of global warming, per the dogmatic AGW hypothesis?
Oh, that's right, global warming is not accelerating.
Note: Source of CO2 annual CO2 emissions tonnes and source of CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels. Growth percent calculations and chart plots accomplished using Excel. Update: Annual growth percents plotted are calculated using prior year measurement as numerator and following year measurement as denominator. Another update: typo on chart corrected - thank you, Tom Nelson.
As this chart depicts, atmospheric CO2 growth has been on a fast-track growth curve. CO2 levels have been accelerating up since 1960 - true relentless growth.
The dogmatic and conventional global warming hypothesis claims that this type of CO2 level growth will cause a dangerous increase of both atmospheric and surface temperatures, thus increasing atmospheric water vapor - i.e., humidity - leading to a positive feedback loop of non-stoppable accelerating global warming.
Clearly, as this chart of empirical evidence reveals, that has not happened. Atmospheric humidity has actually declined, while the atmosphere and ocean temperatures accelerate, decelerate and often develop cooling phases.
Unlike the monotonous, steady state, fast CO2 growth, the major climate measurements are highly variable, obviously unlinked to the CO2 input from humans.
However, per the evidence and the newest research, a case can be made that the non-acceleration and variability of global temperatures for the last 15+ years may have more to do with the 11-year cycles of sunspot activity not being as strong during recent solar peaks than the relentless CO2 growth.
Note: The dark purple, blue and red curves represent centered 37-month averages. The non-centered 37-month averages for CO2 (cyan dots) and RSS atmosphere temperature (green curve) were superimposed on the original chart found here.
Article: This new study for the northern China Sea is just another recent example of empirical evidence supporting past research regarding the global warming experienced during both the Roman and Medieval periods.
And don't forget, that for a brief period, the IPCC's "consensus experts" attempted to claim that modern global warming was unprecedented. But that attempt failed miserably when it became obvious a mountain of peer-reviewed studies easily refuted the "unprecedented" claim.
The Pope's climate doomsday encyclical has generated a lot of controversy; and has probably doomed him to be eventually nominated for the Catholic 'hall of shame' for fear mongering anti-science.
Of course, it's not completely the Pope's fault for his ignorance. The Pope's gatekeepers and advisers can take much of the credit for making sure he did not hear about the actual climate science empirical evidence.
One climate doomsday scenario (among many) that continues to have no basis in climate science reality is the infamous prediction that Gaia will soon have a Venus-like atmosphere and boiling oceans...because of humans fossil fuel use. You can rest assured that Pope Francis was made aware of the potentiality of this fringe calamity.
It's a calamity that has long been pushed by the world's leading climate science alarmists.
NASA's former top climate expert, James Hansen, has been in the past a principal proponent of this particular doomsday prophecy. And of course, he provided the dramatic testimony to Congress in the summer of 1988 that really initiated the fear mongering in the U.S. regarding catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters - like turning Earth into Venus.
Unfortunately for the Pope, James Hansen and other hysterical climate doomsday soothsayers, the real world empirical evidence clearly shows that the world's climate is self-correcting and not prone to those scary predicted tipping points and runaway disasters from growing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Case in point: The Tropics (20S to 20N latitudes) - A Venus Doomsday?
The above chart plot reveals a tropical climate, as measured by satellites, experiencing a very slight cooling trend (blue curve) over the last 20 years. In contrast, the IPCC's latest climate model (CMIP5/RCP4.5) curve (green line) predicted a significant warming trend during that same 20-year period.
Going back even further, the red chart plot depicts an 83-month period of exceptional warming right after the Hansen testimony of 1988. In contrast, the IPCC climate models predicted a significant cooling trend for the Tropics for those 83 months - an abysmal failure, represented by a 7 degree trend difference between reality and prediction.
Needless to say, although we will, both the consensus climate experts and climate models have been spectacularly wrong in their doomsday projections for the Tropics, which means that human CO2 causing Venus-like conditions for Gaia has no basis in climate science reality.
It's unfortunate that this pope fell victim to his own gullibility and the anti-science machinations of his court jesters advisers. But there is good news for the Catholic masses: you can now also comfortably ignore this encyclical since it was produced from the irrational passion of fear versus the known rational, empirical climate science.
NOAA's latest U.S. temperature dataset reveals that over last 20 years (including 1996), May temperatures have been on a cooling trend: a -0.8°F/century trend.
In addition, the same dataset for 12-month periods ending May shows a cooling trend over 19 years. That trend is a -0.4°F/century.
Regardless if one refers to these climate temperature dynamics as a 'pause,' a 'stall,' a 'hiatus,' or a 'plateau,' it was not expected - no alarmist hypothesis or theory-based scenario predicted this outcome.
Note: Temperature trends are for the continental U.S. The official climate agency source of trends and chart.
It is well documented that global temperature acceleration has significantly paused since 1998, despite the global CO2 emissions growth rate easily exceeding the business-as-usual (BAU) scenarios presented by NASA's James Hansen way back in 1988.
Yet the UN's Paris2015 proposed deep cuts in "dangerous" global CO2 emission growth rates will only delay "climate doomsday" by a laughable 8 months. And that would be accompanied by a likely debilitating economic impact of trillions of dollars - mostly suffered by the world's poor and most vulnerable.
The chart on left plots the most up-to-date 15-year average growth rates of CO2 emissions versus the global economy 15-year average growth rates. Surprisingly, as the GDP growth rate declines, on average, CO2 emissions growth just continues.
With that pointed out, it's also pertinent to point out that over the last 15 years the U.S. total emissions have actually shrunk, as well as those of the EU. In contrast, CO2 emissions for other major world economic regions have robustly increased over the last 15 years.
Political expedience, and a craving to please, truly corrupts scientists and the science they produce...in an era when science fraud is on an exponential rise, one would think that climate agencies would be more careful with their scientific integrity...especially in a year of a major climate conference...did NOAA just provide a new Climategate-effort of science deception?...similar to what sunk Copenhagen2009?.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The past several days has seen much written about the new revision of the NOAA global temperature dataset - a revision that supposedly eliminates the global warming 'pause' or if you prefer, the 'hiatus'.
The revision has received withering scrutiny, with multiple significant criticisms being leveled. Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands "scientists" find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.
By utilizing questionable adjustments based on even more questionable assumptions, NOAA managed to produce an entirely fabricated increase in the global warming trend from 1998 to 2012. Theirs is not a real global warming event, it is essentially nothing more than statistical flimflam.
Per the critics, several key failings include:
The complete ignoring of the world's best climate measurement technologies - satellites and the Argo ocean-float array system - likely ignored because both technologies show little if any warming in their respective realms.
The authors provided a statistical significance level of a remarkably lame .10 - so lame it pretty much alone indicates this study's claims have the lasting robustness of toilet paper after flushing.
This study significantly lowered sea surface temperatures, specifically from 1998-2000. This lowering had the immediate impact of making the temperature rise from 2000-2012 appear much larger than it really was.
Study used Arctic land temperatures to manufacture rising Arctic sea temperatures - conveniently ignoring that regional sea temperatures are almost always zero (0°C) since sea ice stretches across the area for a majority of a given year.
In a rather bizarre manner that non-biased scientists would not employ, this study massively adjusted up the ocean buoy temperature measurements in order to match the ship records of engine water intake temperature; yet the buoys were designed to measure surrounding sea temperatures, and the engine intakes were not. Scientists familiar with this issue agree that the ship engine enhanced temperature measurements should have been adjusted down instead.
Despite all the ludicrous adjustment machinations this newest NOAA revision relies on, the per century global warming trend fabricated (for the 1998 to 2012 period) remains well below even the IPCC's average climate model projections.
Relevant to that last point, is the above chart. It's a comparison of warming trends during the 15-year periods ending 2012 (see blue rectangles) and 1997 (see red circles).
Using climate agency temperature anomalies that were reported as of the end of 2012, one can clearly see the dramatic drop in global warming rates from the earlier 1983-1997 period versus the period ending 2012.
Did it still warm from 1998 to 2012?
Yes, it did. But it was at a fraction of the warming trend of the previous 15 years - a definitive slowdown versus the prior warming trend.
And as the chart reveals, the CMIP models (the RCP 4.5 scenarios) expected significantly more warming than observed during 1998-2012 period. Objectively, the models predicted an accelerating warming rate, which actually failed to happen, as the empirical evidence proves.
Because of this decline ('pause'?) in global warming trends, NOAA felt compelled to simply fabricate more warming in a rather feeble attempt to make global warming seem more of a existential threat that might even scare an anti-capitalism Pope into embarrassing fear-mongering.
Unfortunately for the "scientists" at NOAA, despite all their really lame statistical shenanigans, the revised NOAA temperature trend for the 15-year period ending 2012 is still a quite tepid 0.9°C per century - indeed, the descriptor 'lukewarm' readily comes to mind.
Article: The myth that modern global warming is "unprecedented" continues despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that debunks the myth. This study from China provides additional proof that natural climate change is a powerful driving force that produces warning phases without human intervention.