The mountain of empirical evidence of fraud just keeps growing...massive climate record adjustments by NOAA and other climate agencies continues...blatant adjustment manipulations presented as the actual temperature measurements...all in the name of the "global warming" agenda of power-hungry elites...simply, it is an agenda of pure ideology supported by anti-science quacks producing fabrications...a disturbing FactCheck.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
A new article over at NoTricksZone brings us yet another example of scientific fraud perpetrated by the national climate agencies.
As the adjacent chart from the NTZ article documents, NOAA's definitive manipulations of a U.S. states climate records to enhance the modern global warming trend is indisputable.
As the engineering physicist who analyzed the recent NOAA dataset for Maine concluded:
"In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone...They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F."
Powerful and wealthy elites, global warming alarmists and climate-doomsday cult'sters' often make statements like..."it is indisputable, global warming is unequivocal"...but here's the problem...that is an exceptionally misleading, anti-science piece of propaganda that should never be tolerated...even NOAA's empirical evidence shows the lie of that type of statement.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
In previous articles, evidence was presented that much of the globe has not warmed since year 2000 - areas such as regions of the world's ocean, the lower atmosphere and major regions of the U.S.
However, if global warming is "unequivocal" from CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases as claimed, then how is it possible that major components and areas of the world are not warming?
As it turns out, where one actually measures temperature change is a huge factor whether the end result is "global" warming or not.
Simply put, as all climate scientists agree, urban/metro and airport areas are robustly warmer than surrounding areas, during both the daylight and night hours. And, as it turns out, they are warming at multiple times greater rate than rural regions.
They are not warmer because of more CO2 and methane. They are warmer because they have more people, cars, schools, stores, restaurants, planes, trucks, buses, trains, factories, concrete, asphalt, buildings, parking lots and etc.
And because of some very incredibly shortsighted decisions, the majority of climate stations are now located in the urban/airport areas, with most of the rural stations being eliminated. Thus, there now exists a built in bias impacting global warming calculations, which heat-up the actual climate reality.
How big is that bias impact? That's what the adjacent graph helps to reveal.
Take Reagan National Airport in the Washington DC metro. It's warming at an astounding +14.6F degrees per century pace over the last 15 years. Now compare that to a rural area about 170 miles west of DC, in the very northwest part of Maryland. (This portion of the country is called the Allegheny Plateau region a NOAA/NCDC designated climate division). It's cooling at a -3.1°F per century rate.
An 18 degree warming rate difference within a 3-hour journey? CO2 is not responsible for that.
So, why do the U.S. politicos, elites and media believe the world is "unequivocally" warming?
Because they live and work in highly urbanized areas that have the necessary attributes that cause a positive temperature feedback - often referred to as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). They are oblivious to the fact most of the world's populace does not live in these concrete-cocoon heat traps and are not experiencing ludicrous warming where the wealthy and powerful congregate.
Again, examine the above chart. Urban/airport warming locations (Reagan Natl, Dulles, Richmond and Baltimore) exhibit fast "global" warming growth. The two highly populated states (Virginia & Maryland) surrounding these urban regions show more moderate warming. And nearby rural areas (the Appalachia Mountain and Allegheny Plateau areas of Maryland) actually have cooled over the last 15 years.
Importantly, the rural areas' temperature cooling are more in line with the entire continental US climate, as shown.
Why does the U.S. exhibit an overall cooling trend for the last 15 years? Obviously, geographically, the U.S. has a much greater abundance of rural areas, similar to the Allegheny Plateau region, than urban/airport complexes. In fact, it is claimed over 90% of the U.S. is considered rural.
Memo to Republicans: For discussions and debates about climate change, use only official weather/climate station thermometer datasets located in rural regions and/or from satellites. Urban/airport thermometers do not measure temperature change from CO2/GHG climate change - they measure temperature change produced by the concrete-cocoon urbanization. Demand that NOAA/NASA/EPA primarily report satellite/rural temperature changes as a leading indicator for potential greenhouse gas influences. Dismiss with contempt those global warming calculations that are quoted which include the hot airport/urban thermometers.
Note: Source for urban and regional 15-year annual temperature datasets. Above Excel chart only shows per century linear trends calculated by Excel, not the annual datapoints. For the chart, adjusted y-axis to better fit all trends on a single viewable image for the article.
The advanced sophistication of satellites allows for the precise recording of empirical measurements...these capabilities captured the stunning natural change in global temperatures during the 1998 Super El Niño...a dramatic climate change shift that remains unrivaled since....
The super El Niño of 1998 made obvious to researchers of how natural climate phenomenons can generate huge changes that are felt for years.
Using an average of each year's monthly temperature anomalies (satellite measured), the adjacent chart's columns depict the huge shift in global temperatures from the prior 1998 level to the post-1998 level.
According to the state-of-the-art technology used by climate scientists, global warming has been unequaled since this 1998 natural event.
The only year that came close to the 1998 global temperature was 2010.
Although no single year has yet bested the 1998 temp record, the 16-year average after 1998 (including 2014) is significantly higher than the 16-year period prior. Natural climate change dramatically shifted global temperatures up, and they have not returned to the previous average level.
Instead, the annual global temperatures since 1998 have shown considerable variation, but do not reflect a pattern of temperature climate change shift - a shift only delivered by a natual phenomenon (like a super El Niño). In fact, the much researched 'Hiatus', which has existed for the last 15+ years, corroborates the lack of any impactful climate change since 1998.
As all scientists concur, the El Nino/La Nina climate oscillations take place without any human intervention or influence. Their frequency and intensity are a result of the chaotic climate system that makes it impossible for "experts" and computer models to accurately predict. Yet, when a 'big one' does occur the implications worldwide are enormous.
The overall billions spent on satellite technology has resulted in scientists being able to not only monitor these climate-significant ENSO events, the sophisticated technology has also proven to be the best means to measure the world's climate temperatures, 24/7, across the entire globe (99.6%) on a daily basis.
One way to assess the superb and spectacular satellite coverage is to envision over 127 million thermometers placed on the globe constantly taking temperature readings. In contrast, the traditional/conventional means of measuring temperatures by NOAA/NASA/UKMetOffice rely on less than 5,000 thermometers, each one supposedly recording temperature changes for a land area equal to the size of Spain.
So how does that old, traditional method work in order to determine a global temperature then? Essentially, they measure temperatures in a given specific location then use that sparse information combined with formulas to guesstimate temperatures in nearby regions.
Well, that's not too precise and is fraught with errors/biases that have to be constantly adjusted for. That's why it takes several weeks of number crunching and "adjusting" after the satellites have already reported their gold-standard global measurements.
For a good write-up on the difference between the state-of-the-art measurement technology and the old, conventional means, go here.
In the meantime, major climate change seems to be in a stalled status until the next major natural phenomenon takes place.
The well documented 'pause' for the global warming trend over the last 15+ years has generated over 50 hypothetical science explanations...the latest cloud coverage analysis appears to be a better explanation.....
(click on to enlarge)
Greenhouse gases, including CO2, looking less and less the major drivers of global temperatures and climate change.
When objective (non-IPCC) science research is done, without the political agenda, Earth's climate seems dominated by natural forces.
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...
(click on image to enlarge)
Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.
And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.
====> "Here we present[Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."
The dual embarrassments of the non-predicted global warming 'Pause' and the spectacular, abject failures of the wildly expensive climate models has resulted in the "experts" producing a multitude of excuses as to why the infamous AGW/CO2 hypothesis has failed, again and again....
(click on image to enlarge)
So, Watts Up With That uses this image along with an article delineating the excuses given so far for the 'Pause' and failures of the inaccurate climate models.
The list currently stands at a 10-count. But it's very likely to go higher in the near future, no?
#10. Low solar activity means less warming
#9. Warming is "hiding" in the deepest realms of the world's oceans
#8. Pollutants from Chinese coal burning blocked the warming
#7. The unintended consequences of Montreal Protocol for ozone has slowed warming
#6. Too few Arctic weather stations are reporting the predicted warming
#5.Major Minor volcanic eruptions somehow are now blocking warming
#4. Unexpected decrease of water vapor in the stratosphere slows global warming trend
#3. The changing, anti-warming Pacific's trade winds not anticipated in global climate change models
#2. Climate signals from stadium wave phenomenon interrupted predicted global warming pattern
#1. Leading government climate "experts" put it all down as "coincidence"
Now this list provides overwhelming evidence that consensus climate scientists and major government climate agencies agree this extended 'Pause' took place and continues.
Yet despite this scientific agreement, there are still those fanatical GWNs who continue to push the jihad of anti-science, scaremongering propaganda ... along with an overabundance of extremist threats.
The empirical evidence is indisputable and unequivocal.
The continental U.S. has been cooling (-6.5°F/century rate) over the last 15 years, per NOAA. This can no longer be denied by the scientific community and the politicians fanatically pushing the anti-science claim that dangerous and rapid global warming is taking place, due to human CO2 emissions.
This chart plots the most recent monthly U.S. temperatures through January 2014, including the simple 36-month moving average of CO2 atmospheric levels over the last 180 months.
While "global warming" activists/proponents focus on superficial, short-term cherry-picks of the "hottest ________" (just fill in the blank with 'day', 'week', 'month', 'quarter', 'year', etc. to mimic a typical fanatic's cherry-picking spiel), those stubborn climate facts, which are critical, remain simple: the entire globe has experienced a long warming 'pause' and America's climate has been on a cooling trend over that same time span.
Scientists are unable to explain this 'standstill' using the "consensus" AGW hypothesis, and any discussions of the 'inconvenient' U.S. cooling trend are entirely avoided by politicians, climate agency scientists/bureaucrats and other warming advocates.
The observed current U.S. cooling trend is not a prediction, but it does indicate that the continental landmass is affected by powerful, non-CO2 greenhouse gas factors that may continue for the near future.
Note: Chart's linear trend is calculated using monthly absolute temperature values. If using anomalies instead, based on monthly averages from 1901 to 2000 base period, the per century cooling trend is -2.4°F.
Datasets used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Recently, the world's major climate agencies published their year-end empirical datasets for global temperatures.
How does actual climate reality compare with the IPCC's 2013 proclamation that their "extremely likely" predictions of global temperatures? With 95% certainty, embarrassingly bad. (click on chart to enlarge)
The chart on the left is a plot of the IPCC's RCP4.5 model output versus the climate reality, as represented by the UK's HadCRUT4 global monthly temperature dataset. The bright red and blue curves are simple 3-year moving averages that visually removes all the monthly gyrations.
It is clear that the IPCC's state-of-the-art 2013 climate models start diverging from climate reality around the 1995 period. And the divergence continues to widen to the point where one could conclude that any future output will be extremely unlikely to be of any value to policymakers.
Put another way, these billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded super-computer model simulations have performed atrociously, and are entirely worthless at predicting future climate scenarios.
How did this happen?
While the IPCC's associated climate "experts" are going through their own set of mental gyrations to explain the abysmal climate model and AGW hypothesis performances, two scientists explain how this failure was produced - article number one and article number two.
If you are curious as to the 'whys' of IPCC climate consensus failure, these articles are a must read. For those short on time, though, in a nutshell a compiled summary of reasons for failure:
natural climate variability ignorance
de-emphasis of large uncertainty
dogmatic co2-AGW orthodoxy
Until the above are adequately addressed and fixed, the probability that climate models will predict with accuracy that policymakers can actually rely on is extremely unlikely, with 99.9% certainty.
The empirical evidence is irrefutable, no longer debatable.
These 20 studies confirm that the known Northern Hemisphere natural climate change periods, referred to as the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Period, also had significant impacts on the Southern Hemisphere.
In all cases, across both hemispheres, the large, natural climate changes took place without any human CO2 influence.
This means that natural climate change is caused by other factors that are of either earthly or (and) cosmic/solar origins.
The UN's IPCC and its coterie of green-sharia "scientists" have long pursued a political agenda that requires all climate change and global warming to be a result of human CO2 emissions, and in addition, any solar impact on temperatures is absolutely minimal - yet, the empirical evidence does not support said political agenda, including the BEST maximum temperature dataset
Read here. The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmists have long predicted that increasing CO2 levels will directly cause global warming to reach anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees Celsius higher in the near future. In essence the world's maximum temperatures are being exclusively driven to dangerous heights by CO2.
But is that actually happening?
The most recent empirical evidence clearly indicates that CO2 levels are not driving the average atmospheric, global and/or ocean temperatures dangerously higher. And now comes an analysis of the BEST temperature dataset, which confirms the weak driving force that CO2 appears to be.
This graph has monthly atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed onto plots of the BEST maximum temperatures for the U.S. and a solar activity proxy (i.e. Total Solar Irradiance). The blue maximum temperature plot is in sync (up and down) with the red solar activity curve. Obviously, the ever incessant rise of CO2 levels is not in sync with the up and down movements of temperature variation.
"Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set...The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection...This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale...Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration." [Article byBob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs.]
1. Solar activity is 'best' at explaining an increase in maximum global temperatures and the related variation of global temperatures.
2. CO2 levels explain little of the amplitude of maximum temperatures and are exceptionally lame at explaining monthly variation of global temperatures.
The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is on verge of collapse as non-existent warming facts force unpleasant admissions of truth - and, the empirical evidence implicates increasing clouds as being the culprit for the halt of warming
This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.
The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.
As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.
Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.
The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).
Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):
“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979
to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and
high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds
appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1
percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the
black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]
#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.
#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely
#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.
#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.
#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.
Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence...in addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits...
(click image to enlarge, image source of one, two, three)
...and finally, global warming skeptics believe, for a multitude of reasons, human errors/mistakes/failings have caused late 20th century global warming to be significantly overstated.
This article addresses this last point. What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world-wide warming being overstated?
Well, NOAA has actually conducted said experiment by building their U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which precisely, and automatically, measures temperature and weather conditions across the U.S. The USCRN effort is based on the concept that the best way to measure the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures is to place state-of-the-art climate stations in pristine rural areas that are little impacted by people, buildings, vehicles, equipment, asphalt and etc.
An example of one of NOAA's pristine climate measurement stations is the top image (Image #1). And the middle image depicts the location of each pristine station - there are currently 114 of them, and clearly they are well dispersed providing good U.S. coverage.
By carefully planning and maintaining these pristine stations and by using the best technology available, this large-scale experiment eliminates the following problems with the older weather measurement network:
There are no observer or transcription errors to correct.
There is no time of observation bias, nor need for correction of it.
There is no broad scale missing data, requiring filling in data from potentially bad surrounding stations. (FILNET)
There are no needs for bias adjustments for equipment types since all equipment is identical.
There are no need for urbanization adjustments, since all stations are rural and well sited.
There are no regular sensor errors due to air aspiration and triple redundant lab grade sensors. Any errors detected in one sensor are identified and managed by two others, ensuring quality data.
Due to the near perfect geospatial distribution of stations in the USA, there isn’t a need for gridding to get a national average temperature.
So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story - when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature "warming" in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months.
To clarify, this range of overstatement depends on the given new and old stations being compared. However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1°F higher than the actual temperatures.
What does this mean? Within the climate science realm, the old climate/weather station system had long been considered the best and most complete measurement network in the world. But when pitted against a brand new climate measurement system that has the best qualities that science can provide, we find that the traditional U.S. methodology is significantly overstating the "global warming" phenomenon. This means that if other countries replaced their own low quality network with NOAA's greatest and latest technology, with the best location site standards applied, we would discover that world-wide temperature increases have been wildly overstated also.
Conclusions: A large-scale NOAA experiment has proven that global warming skeptics were correct: temperature warming in the U.S. has been significantly overstated in recent decades. This NOAA experiment should be expanded to other continents and countries since it is now obvious that the combined older technology and substandard weather station sites have well overstated the global warming phenomenon. Before any further dollars are spent on climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, the world needs to upgrade their global weather/climate reporting network to the USCRN standard so that policymakers have correct temperature change mesurements to base their decisions on.
Obama's green fundamentalists took control over the EPA and have since been on a jihad to destroy the coal industry and other fossil fuel sectors - but like so many religious fanatics, Obama's extremists ignore the actual science
Read here. As has been clearly demonstrated with empirical evidence, recent global warming (or lack of) is not the result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
So, if CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature changes, then what is?
The adjacent chart is a plot of daytime high temperatures and solar radiation. The very visible close relationship between solar energy and the maximum temperatures is very obvious, and is irrefutable - it's the sun, stupid!
With most scientists now recognizing that the jihad against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming/cooling. And, the solar influence now appears to be the major culprit.
In the realm of the political climate, both Romney and Ryan should be constantly bashing Obama and the Democrats over their destruction of the coal industry, and the anti-science green, fanatic jihad unleashed on the American economy. Driving the coal industry to bankruptcy and curtailing oil drilling across the U.S. was a completely needless hatchet attack on economic growth by Obama's EPA.
The global warming science facts can often be so brutal for the climate-doomsday-from-CO2 alarmists >>> the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has determined that Asian pollution will warm the globe so much that it offsets any U.S. CO2 emission reductions
Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.
The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.
"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
The global warming science facts conclusions: Any attempt by the U.S. to massively reduce its CO2 emissions will be a total waste of money and effort as Asian pollution will easily offset that attempt. This NCAR analysis is eye-opening and should be seriously considered by America's policymakers. But it should be remembered that this analysis is based on global climate models, which have been incredibly ineffectual at predicting temperatures, let alone climate conditions across the world or in specific regions. And it should be pointed out that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 years have been on a cooling trend of minus 2 degrees (F) per century through April 2012 - for some reason, all those past Asian pollutants have not warmed the U.S.
The global warming science facts, black carbon is a major pollutant that not only kills thousands per year but has been found to be a major contributor to increasing global temperatures - a new peer reviewed study confirms findings of previous research
Read here. While climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits wasted everyone's time and money about catastrophic destruction from CO2-induced global warming and climate change, real scientists continued their investigations of the climate and what drives it. Latest research confirms what the National Academy of Sciences published way back in 2000.
A new study by Allen et al. has determined that black carbon and other modern pollutants have been major contributors to temperature warming, which has enhanced the expansion of the tropics into higher latitudes. This research also confirms that the IPCC's insistence that human CO2 is the principal driver of climate change is seriously wrong, beside being hopelessly outdated.
"Observational analyses have shown the width of the tropical belt increasing in recent decades as the world has warmed...we use a climate model with detailed aerosol physics to show that increases in heterogeneous warming agents—including black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone—are noticeably better than greenhouse gases at driving expansion, and can account for the observed summertime maximum in tropical expansion. Mechanistically, atmospheric heating from black carbon and tropospheric ozone has occurred at the mid-latitudes, generating a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet, thereby relocating the main division between tropical and temperate air masses." [Robert J.Allen, Steven C. Sherwood, Joel R. Norris, Charles S. Zender 2012: Nature]
Conclusions: The global warming science facts - black carbon, a major modern pollutant, is causing global warming and an expansion of the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere. Latest research confirms that human CO2 emissions are not the only human driver of global temperatures. Of course, this new research does not explain why global temperatures have fallen over the last 15 years, unless there is now less black carbon pollution.
As the famous anti-CO2 fanatic Bill McKibben would say, "connect-the-dots": global warming in recent decades, as reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by NASA, is a result of non-CO2 pollutants, not CO2 as claimed by the IPCC
Read here. As early as 2000, NASA had discovered that the real causes of the prior rapid global warming were a result of non-CO2 pollutants. The NASA team that made this discovery was led by none other than the famous James Hansen, the patron saint of 'wrong-way' AGW on the left here.
Subsequent to those findings (btw, did we mention... ahem...the study was published by the National Academy of Sciences?), these scientists then discovered that the real money (funding, grants, perpetual salaries etc.) could be found by focusing on human CO2 emissions instead. Thus, this NASA paper was quietly forgotten about.
The connect-the-dots, global-warming-is-money-paradigm helps explain why climate doomsday scientists keep perpetrating such scientific atrocities as Fakegate and Climategate.
Global warming science facts from new research indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable
(Ooops....don't confuse this wonderful looking ENSO to the left with the climate variety!)
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists speculated that global warming from human CO2 emissions would somehow cause the El Niño/La Niña climate cycle to become stuck in the El Niño mode. This would be the proverbial "tipping point" potentially causing the infamous runaway warming.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, and fortunately for the rest of us, Earth's systems primarily operates in a negative feedback fashion, preventing runaway situations. In addition, Davies et al. confirmed that during past warming periods, ENSO did not become stuck in the El Nino mode.
"The authors write that "variations in the frequency and amplitude of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) recorded in both instrumental and paleoclimate archives have led to speculation that global warming may cause fundamental changes...More specifically, they state that there is speculation that "warmer climates may promote a permanent El Niño state...In a study designed to further explore this possibility...analyzed the latest Cretaceous laminated Marca Shale of California, which permits..."a seasonal-scale reconstruction of water column flux events and, hence, interannual paleoclimate variability," during what is known to have been a "past 'greenhouse' climate state."...In light of their recent findings, Davies et al. say there is "little support for the existence of a 'permanent El Niño'...that there was robust ENSO variability in past 'greenhouse' episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state," which point they also emphasize in the final sentence of their abstract, where they say that their evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability "does not support the theory of a 'permanent El Niño,'" [Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, John A. Barron 2012: Geology]
Conclusion: Global warming science facts - the fear-mongering speculation that modern global warming would initiate a permanent El Niño 'tipping point' is without empirical merit. The ENSO climate pattern will retain its variability, unchanged by human CO2 emissions.
Read here. Global warming alarmists and hysterical pundits/reporters are now apparently turning every nasty weather event into "proof" that current global warming is causing extreme climate change. Unfortunately for said alarmists, the empirical evidence completely undercuts claims that warming causes bad weather - essentially, the claims are all hype for several reasons.
One, there has been no global warming for the last 15 years - the climate observation datasets are unequivocal about this.
Two, from the recent past, it is well documented that very severe weather has been part of our climate over the last 100 years, well before the modern warming from the late 1970's to the late 1990's.
Three, EU scientists (Sabatier et al.) have now documented that severe weather was worst in the historical past when temperatures were colder, not warmer.
"The authors write that "the Mediterranean region is one of the world's most vulnerable areas with respect to global warming,"...they thus consider it to be extremely important to determine what impact further temperature increases might have on the storminess of the region...produced a high-resolution record of paleostorm events along the French Mediterranean coast over the past 7000 years...from the sediment bed of Pierre Blanche Lagoon [near Montpellier, France]...nine French scientists, as they describe it, "recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300-6100, 5650-5400, 4400-4050, 3650-3200, 2800-2600, 1950-1400, and 400-50 cal yr BP," the latter of which intervals they associate with the Little Ice Age. And they go on to state, "in contrast," that their results show that "the Medieval Climate [global warming] Anomaly (1150-650 cal yr BP) was characterized by low storm activity." They further note that these changes in coastal hydrodynamics were in phase with those observed over the Eastern North Atlantic...and that the periods of increased storminess they identified seem to correspond to periods of Holocene cooling detected in the North Atlantic..." [Pierre Sabatier, Laurent Dezileau, Christophe Colin, Louis Briqueu, Frédéric Bouchette, Philippe Martinez, Giuseppe Siani, Olivier Raynal, Ulrich Von Grafenstein 2012: Quaternary Research]
Conclusion: The claimed extreme climate change and associated severe weather events over the last 15 years are not the result of "global warming." In addition, historical empirical evidence makes it clear that severe weather incidents increase as the climate cools, not when it warms. It is well established that the past cooler climates have had profound negative impacts on society whereas warmer climates have been more beneficent.
The IPCC often claims its climate models are infallible and all knowing when it comes to the climate - new study reveals major climate modeling failure as they are unable to accurately simulate Greenland's past climate accurately
Read here. Greenland's current climate is heavily influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which has a lengthy periodicity. The AMO is a natural climate variability phenomenon having a strong impact on North Atlantic's regional temperatures.
Recent analysis of the Greenland ice cores, by Chylek et al., has proven that the powerful AMO variability has been part and parcel of the Greenland climate for thousands of years, pushing temperatures higher and lower depending on the cycle point.
This natural, internal variability has no connection to external factors (forcings) such as the CO2 greenhouse gas.
In addition, the scientists determined that the climate models, favored by the IPCC and other non-empirical based scientists, are unable to faithfully mimic the ancient past AMO variability due to geographic differences (location differences) - a major climate modeling failure.
"...examine evidence of the AMO that is contained in several ice core records distributed across Greenland. The researchers were looking to see whether there were changes in the character of the AMO over different climatological periods in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period—periods that long preceded large-scale human aerosol emissions. And indeed they found some. The AMO during the Little Ice Age was characterized by a quasi-periodicity of about 20 years, while the during the Medieval Warm Period the AMO oscillated with a period of about 45 to 65 years...The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing...However, the geographic variability of these periodicities indicated by ice core data is not captured in model simulations." [Petr Chylek, Chris Kenneth Folland, Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K Dubey 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: The climate (ie, temperatures) of Greenland and other northern latitude areas has principally been driven by the periodicity of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation. The non-accurate simulation of this variability is another climate modeling failure that needs to be addressed.
What do you know about global warming? In the case of the IPCC, maybe you know a lot more - IPCC finally admits that paving over tropical forests is a major factor in climate change
Read here. Most people, having even an ounce of common sense, would correctly conclude that paving over agricultural lands with asphalt or that destroying forests to plant bio-fuel crops would have a major influence on temperatures. Amazingly, for the past 20 years, the IPCC has claimed that changes in such 'land-use' had little impact.
The IPCC and its closely controlled peer review journals have now admitted that land-use changes do indeed have a major impact on climate change and local/regional and even global temperatures. The IPCC will now include land-use changes as a major forcing in its "climate bible" assessments.
Honestly, is it any wonder the IPCC's climate models have been abysmally bad over the last 20 years at predicting global temperatures when such an obviously idiotic failure is finally admitted to?
"There is an article in the March 15 2012 issue of Nature that finally elevates land use change to its proper level as a first order climate forcing. While the article still does not recognize that land conversion, particularly in the low latitudes but also in the boreal forest regions continues and, therefore, will add further to how humans are altering the climate, it is an important step for the IPCC to finally make. In 1995 I resigned from the IPCC after efforts to get them to mention this issue were rebuffed..."
What do you know about global warming? The IPCC and its impact on tropical deforestation
Because the IPCC failed to correctly recognize, identify and publicly state that land-use changes were a primary driver of climate change and temperatures, wealthy individuals like George Soros and Richard Branson have been provided incentives to trash natural forested habitats, to be replaced with money producing bio-fuel agriculture plots (e.g., palm plantations). Now that the IPCC has belatedly recognized the importance of land-use changes on climate, possibly the world's wealthy elites will no longer be able to invest in major natural habitat changing projects.
New research published in 2011 & 2012 continues to build on a major 1999 study that found increased sun activity (solar flux, etc.) is a significant cause of modern global warming
While reviewing the bounty of solar and climate information found at the Global Warming Science site, we found the adjacent chart (this is the 'C3' revised version using annual HadCRUT global temperatures instead of monthly).
Clearly, there is a strong relationship between solar activity (magnetic solar flux) and global temperatures.
The relationship is not perfect but it represents a significant improvement over the incredibly lame human-CO2 and global warming / climate change relationship claimed by the IPCC's anti-CO2 Climategate scientists and alarmists.
"The solar wind, because it is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun, thereby filling the heliosphere with the weak interplanetary magnetic field. Magnetic reconnection - the merging of oppositely-directed magnetic fields such that they become connected to each other - between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field, allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, though the connections are as yet not well understood. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964." [M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild 1999: Nature]
"The authors examined measurements of near-earth interplanetary magnetic field to determine the total magnetic flux leaving the sun since 1868...authors were able to show that the total magnetic flux leaving the sun has risen by a factor of 1.41 over the period 1964-1996. Surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field previous to this time indicate that this parameter has increased by a factor of 2.3 since 1901...results of this study lead us to wonder just how much of the reported 0.6°C global temperature rise of the last century might be a result of the more than two-fold increase in the total magnetic solar flux over that period. We may now, at long last, be moving closer than ever in our effort to understand the importance of the sun in driving 20th century climate change."
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions found to be less of a climate forcing than the UN's IPCC climate models assume
Read here. The IPCC's climate modelers purposefully designed the computer models to implicate human CO2 emissions as the major culprit for global warming and climate change. As the climatic empirical evidence kept growing though, it became obvious these models were atrocious at climate prediction, specifically due to their myopic reliance on CO2 as the principal global warming forcing.
As the majority of scientists are now coming to believe, new research from Humlum et al. determines that indeed human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of global warming. The peer-reviewed research clearly implicates the climate's natural variability as the driving force of global warming.
"...we demonstrate how such persistent natural variations can be used for hindcasting and forecasting climate. Our main focus is on identifying the character (timing, period, amplitude) of such recurrent natural climate variations, but we also comment on the likely physical explanations for some of the identified cyclic climate variations. The causes of millennial climate changes remain poorly understood, and this issue remains important for understanding causes for natural climate variability over decadal- and decennial time scales...►We identified persistent cyclic variations in records from Svalbard and Greenland. ► Some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth. ► Some identified cycles correspond to solar variations. ► Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations." [Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheimc, Kjell Stordahld 2011: Global and Planetary Change]
Read here. Despite the recent BEST climate science fiasco, the BEST team has at least confirmed what everyone on the planet agrees to: the globe has warmed since the Little Ice Age; it warmed at an increase rate during the late 20th century; and, global warming disappeared with a subsequent major deceleration during the 21st century. What the BEST researchers did not determine is the cause of the warming - is temperature variation anthropogenic or natural? A new peer reviewed study in a major physics journal provides the answer to that question.
The answer: Yes!
Using advanced statistical techniques, Ludecke et al. concluded that global temperature variation has causes related to both anthropogenic and natural reasons. Depending on a given climate station's temperature measurements, the warming (cooling) trend is likely to be explained, from 40 to 90%, by natural causes. (The remaining anthropogenic causes of temperature change may be a result of greenhouse gases, UHI, land-use, aerosols and etc.)
"We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005...The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation...About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures...that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings...As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered." [Horst-Joachim Ludecke, Rainer Link, and Friedrich-Karl Ewert 2011: International Journal of Modern PhysicsC]
Read here. The climate alarmism bozos/bimbos brigade (Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Jeff Masters and etc.) has claimed that past severe winter conditions were the result of CO2-induced global warming. They did so without a sliver of scientific proof nor empirical evidence.
As the general public deduced, the brigade's claim that extreme winter conditions are being caused by "global warming" is a complete crock. And to the major chagrin of the likes of Kevin Trenberth, the climate modelers are now pointing their collective fingers at the real culprit - the sun. Losing the public and climate/solar science debate both - Ouch!
The team of Ineson et al. determined that a strong solar signal (positive or negative) will cause significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO change produces affects on the winter circulation patterns resulting in a dearth or abundance of Northern Hemisphere severe winter storms. Using climate models, they established a firm relationship between solar maximum/minimum and the change in the NAO.
"A research team...primarily made up of scientists from the U.K.’s Hadley Centre Met Office have identified a fairly strong solar signal in Northern Hemisphere winter circulation patterns which are manifest over Europe and the eastern United States. According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11-yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America...When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems. For instance, during the “snowmageddon” winter of 2009/2010, the NAO was at a near record low value..."Given our modelling result, these cold winters were probably exacerbated by the recent prolonged and anomalously low solar minimum. On decadal timescales the increase in the NAO from the 1960s to 1990s…may also be partly explained by the upwards trend in solar activity evident in the open solar-flux record…."" [Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray, Joanna D. Haigh 2011: Nature Geoscience]
Read here. The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study.
Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change.
"The authors write that "the notorious tropical bias problem in climate simulations of global coupled general circulation models manifests itself particularly strongly in the tropical Atlantic,"... they state that "the climate bias problem is still so severe that one of the most basic features of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean -- the eastward shoaling thermocline -- cannot be reproduced by most of the IPCC assessment report models,...as they describe it, "show that the bias in the eastern equatorial Atlantic has a major effect on sea-surface temperature (SST) response to a rapid change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)."...ultimate implication of Wan et al.'s findings is, in their words, that "in order to accurately simulate past abrupt climate changes and project future changes, the bias in climate models must be reduced." But if "little or no progress" on this problem has been made in the tropical Atlantic "over the past decades,"..." [Xiuquan Wana, Ping Changa, Charles S. Jacksonn, Link Jia, Mingkui Lia 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]
Read here. Climate scientist Andy Dessler produced research that was a supposed refutation of the Spencer and Braswell research. It was pointed out previously that Dessler chose not to use the same HadCRUT data as Spencer, which smacks one as an extreme form of cherry-picking.
If one is to challenge another scientist's research, should they not be held to the standard of using the same data to make their case? Well....apparently not in Dessler's case since he obviously is driven by a political agenda, not a scientific one.
So, what happens when the Dessler methodology uses the gold-standard HadCRUT data that Spencer used? As Steve McIntyre discovers, the new results actually resemble Spencer's output suggesting that clouds provide a negative feedback.
Well, everyone now knows why Dessler avoided the HadCRUT data. His refutation of the Spencer study was literally a sham.
"Having exactly replicated Dessler’s regression results and Figure 2a, I’ve repeated the exercise with CERES clear sky in combination with CERES all sky, and with the widely used HadCRUT3 series and got surprising results...The supposed relationship between CLD forcing and temperature is reversed: the slope is -0.96 w/m2/K rather than 0.54 (and with somewhat higher though still low significance)."
Read here. Droughts are a frequent visitor to the southwest U.S. and Mexico regions. The current drought that this area is experiencing is bad but in no way is it as extreme as the droughts that took place during the Medieval era.
As the chart reveals, both the Medieval and modern periods share a characteristic of high incoming solar irradiance. With the increase of incoming solar energy, the result is time spans of frequent and more intense droughts. These more extreme droughts occur naturally and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, including CO2 emissions.
There are some scientists who predict we are entering a stage where 60-year droughts, like those during the Medieval Period, could occur but no one knows for sure. If solar irradiance falls (as it seems to be doing most recently), the modern drought cycle may end.
Woodhouse et al. published this 1,200 year perspective of Southwestern North America droughts:
"The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought in western North America. Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison... Spatially, the mid-12th century drought covers all of the western U.S. and northern Mexico...whereas the 21st century drought has not impacted parts of the Pacific Northwest...The 21st century drought has lasted about a decade so far, whereas the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity...for two decades, 1140–1159 [AD]...In both instrumental and paleoclimatic records, periods of sustained drought in the Southwest have often been concurrent with elevated temperatures. The warmest such episode, in the mid-12th century, was more extensive and much more persistent than any modern drought experienced to date..." [Connie A. Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Glen M. MacDonald, Dave W. Stahle, Edward R. Cooke 2009: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. It's become common knowledge that the UN's IPCC objective is not one of impartial, scientific analysis of climate change but instead one biased towards political governance and economic control goals. As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC. The urban heat island (UHI) effect on temperature records is one such impact that the IPCC keeps trying to minimize but the actual science keeps refuting the IPCC's agenda-driven science.
Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. This study represents additional empirical evidence that significant global warming is not exclusively due to the IPCC's politically correct causation, CO2 emissions.
"Monthly mean surface air temperature data from 463 meteorological stations, including those from the 1981–2007 ordinary and national basic reference surface stations in east China and from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, are used to investigate the effect of rapid urbanization on temperature change...The trends of urban heat island (UHI) effects...are generally consistent and indicate that rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade. [Xuchao Yang, Yiling Hou, Baode Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. Both China and India pump a lot of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere but that's not the principal cause for the Himalaya glaciers/snow melting. The real culprit is soot (black carbon), a huge and deadly air pollutant.
Instead of focusing on the atmospheric levels of the tiny, trace gas CO2, the U.S. should be helping the Asian countries with technology and science to conquer the soot menace.
"Kopacz et al. used a global chemical transport model to identify the location from which the BC arriving at a variety of locations in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau originates, after which they calculated its direct and snow-albedo radiative forcings...they say that observations of black carbon (BC) content in snow "show a rapidly increasing trend,"..."emissions from northern India and central China contribute the majority of BC to the Himalayas," and that "the Tibetan Plateau receives most BC from western and central China, as well as from India, Nepal, the Middle East, Pakistan and other countries."" [Kopacz, M., Mauzerall, D.L., Wang, J., Leibensperger, E.M., Henze, D.K. and Singh, K. 2011: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics]
Read here and here. The latest research is pointing to another causation of modern climate change: the ozone hole. It appears that the ozone hole affects climate from the southern polar to equator regions, with a special impact on circulation patterns and precipitation levels.
The researchers, Kang et al., make a point that the clueless IPCC did not even mention the ozone hole as a potential climate change force in the 2007 policymaker summary. And recently, it was discovered that an ozone hole is developing in the Arctic polar region.
"“This could be a real game-changer,”...researchers at Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science report their findings that the ozone hole, which is located over the South Pole, has affected the entire circulation of the Southern Hemisphere all the way to the equator...“We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!”...This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too...“While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate." [Sarah Kang, Lorenzo M. Polvani, J. C. Fyfe, M. Sigmond 2011: Science]
From another climate scientist:
“This study does illustrate the important point that different mechanisms of global change are contributing to the climate impacts we’re seeing around the world,” observed Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, a leading UK climate modeller...“It’s very important to unpack them all rather than assuming that any impact we see is down simply to greenhouse gas-mediated warming.”
Read here. While IPCC-biased climate researchers entirely focus efforts on incredibly lame climate models and the AGW CO2-centric hypothesis, other researchers across the globe are conducting groundbreaking research finding new, important impacts on the climate. A new peer-reviewed study on sugarcane by Loarie et al. is an example of such.
Specifically, the researchers document how a single land-use change can significantly impact local/regional temperatures, overwhelming the weak CO2-induced global warming impact.
"Here we quantify the direct climate effects of sugar-cane expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado, on the basis of maps of recent sugar-cane expansion and natural-vegetation clearance combined with remotely sensed temperature, albedo and evapotranspiration over a 1.9 million km2 area. On a regional basis for clear-sky daytime conditions, conversion of natural vegetation to a crop/pasture mosaic warms the cerrado by an average of 1.55°C, but subsequent conversion of that mosaic to sugar cane cools the region by an average of 0.93°C (1.67°F), resulting in a mean net increase of 0.6 °C. Our results indicate that expanding sugar cane into existing crop and pasture land has a direct local cooling effect that reinforces the indirect climate benefits of this land-use option." [Scott R. Loarie, David B. Lobell, Gregory P. Asner, Qiaozhen Mu & Christopher B. Field 2011: Nature Climate Change]
Read here. The 2007 IPCC report went out of its way to diminish the importance of the urban heat island (UHI) effect on global warming. In typical Climategate-style research, the IPCC had to strengthen its case that human CO2 was the primary cause of recent global warming, and the only way to accomplish this was to marginalize and reduce the impact of other factors, including UHI.
A Japanese scientist, unconvinced by the unsubstantiated and non-scientific UHI claims of the IPCC, studied the issue further and has determined that the UHI effect, even in sparsely populated areas, is "statistically significant."
"The author writes that "in the context of global climate change, urban warming can bias results obtained for background monitoring, as many of the observatories that have been in operation for a long time are located in cities.".....Fujibe reports that "the recorded rate of temperature increase is a few degrees per century in large cities and tends to be larger at night than during the daytime." In some cities, in fact, Fujibe writes that "the increase in annual extreme minimum temperature exceeds 10°C per century."...that numerous studies have detected heat islands in small settlements "with a population of 1000 or less,"...where statistically significant trends on the order of 0.04°C per decade have been observed." [Fumiaki Fujibe 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
As the monthly empirical evidence keeps pouring in, the AGW hypothesis and climate model simulations that portray atmospheric CO2 levels being the principal driving force behind global temperature change looks weaker and weaker. A growing chorus of scientists worldwide are now saying that the idea that global warming is caused by 'CO2 vapours' is a quaint, 1800's European hypothesis, but severely lacking in any robust, modern empirical evidence.
While the CO2-vapours based AGW hypothesis crumbles in the face of actual climate data, other scientific explanations regarding global temperature change are looking stronger and stronger. One such hypothesis is that the Southern Oscillation (SO) accounts for some 80% of global temperature variance.
The strength of that explanation appears exceptional when viewing the HadCRUT global temperature change over the last 15 years in comparison to the the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), in the chart immediately below. The evidence suggests a strong statistical relationship for the SO being the primary driver of temperatures and potential climate change.
In comparison, the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures is an obvious weak one, almost statistically non-existent, as the chart below depicts.
Scientists analyzing the below data are now concluding that although CO2 has some impact on temperatures, this incredibly weak statistical evidence is driving their research towards better, more complete explanations.
Read here. Map source here. (click on images to enlarge)
There are multiple factors that affect both regional and global temperatures, but the most important source of long-term temperature change is solar activity. Using data from the Norwegian Sea and multiple solar proxies, the peer-reviewed research by Sejrup et al. confirms a robust and synchronous correlation between solar activity and temperatures.
Note: This research was conducted and completed without the use of magical "hockey stick" science and statistics, perfected by Penn State University personnel.
"...worked with two sediment cores they extracted from the seabed of the eastern Norwegian Sea, developing a 1000-year proxy temperature record "based on measurements of δ18O in Neogloboquadrina pachyderma, a planktonic foraminifer that calcifies at relatively shallow depths within the Atlantic waters of the eastern Norwegian Sea during late summer," which they compared with the temporal histories of various proxies of concomitant solar activity.....This work revealed, as the seven scientists describe it, that "the lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen ~1100-1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after ~1950 A.D." In between these two warm intervals, of course, were the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age, when oscillatory thermal minima occurred at the times of the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf solar minima, such that the δ18O proxy record of near-surface water temperature was found to be "robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium," with decade- to century-scale temperature variability of 1 to 2°C magnitude." [Sejrup, H. P., S. J. Lehman, H. Haflidason, D. Noone, R. Muscheler, I. M. Berstad, and J. T. Andrews 2010: J. Geophys. Res]
Read here (scroll down to "Nitrous Oxide From Rivers & Streams"). Over the last year, it has become painfully obvious that the IPCC "climate science" has been terriblyflawed due to political agendas, resulting in the bogus and inaccurate IPCC climate model simulations. Part of the IPCC agenda is to downplay other contributors to global warming that would detract from the favored, politically correct human CO2 emissions.
As another example of the IPCC's scientific fraud incompetence, a recent peer-reviewed study reveals the IPCC's gross underestimation of another potent greenhouse gas: nitrous oxide (N2O).
"Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change and stratospheric ozone destruction. There are many sources for oxides of nitrogen: the ocean, peat bogs, microbial denitrification in soils, etc. One source that has been mostly overlooked is how much N2O is produced by flowing waters: the world's rivers and streams"..."This is yet another example of the IPCC getting its greenhouse gas sums wrong. In this case they underestimated the emission of N2O from river systems by three fold. One more reason to discount the blame CO2 first dogma put forth by warmist climate science"....."In our study [Beaulieua et al.], most streams were sources of N2O to the atmosphere and the highest emission rates were observed in streams draining urban basins...his estimate of stream and river N2O emissions is three times greater than estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." [Jake J. Beaulieua, Jennifer L. Tanka, Stephen K. Hamiltonb, Wilfred M. Wollheimc, Robert O. Hall, Jr., Patrick J. Mulhollande, Bruce J. Petersong, Linda R. Ashkenash, Lee W. Cooperi, Clifford N. Dahmj, Walter K. Doddsk, Nancy B. Grimml, Sherri L. Johnsonm, William H. McDowelln, Geoffrey C. Pooleo, H. Maurice Valettp, Clay P. Arangoq, Melody J. Bernotr, Amy J. Burgins, Chelsea L. Crenshawj, Ashley M. Heltont, Laura T. Johnsonu, Jonathan M. O'Brienv, Jody D. Pottern, Richard W. Sheibleyl, Daniel J. Sobotaw, and Suzanne M. Thomasg 2010: PNAS peer-reviewed article.]
Read here and here. (click on image to enlarge - Solar Activity Events image source here)
The deathanddestruction of the Little Ice Age (LIA) mercifully came to an end during the mid-1800's as the world began to warm. The LIA occurred during a time when solar activity was extremely low, as evidenced by the Maunder, Spörer and Dalton minimums. Since the absolute solar low point of the Maunder epsiode, solar activity has slowly increased over the last 400 years until it reached its maximum during the modern era.
As the solar activity (total solar irradiance) increased, so did global temperatures [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is .55C] and the warming commenced well before the tremndous increase of CO2 emissions after World War II. Now, a new peer-reveiwed study also identifies a 50% in solar UV striking earth over the last 400 years, which would cause a warming of the oceans. A combination of the increased TSI and UV may explain up to 0.44 degrees of the 0.55 degree HADCRU warming - 80%.
"A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431]
Read here. IPCC and national climate agency climate models have failed spectacularly at predicting the ENSO climate pattern changes that results in major regional weather conditions. A new peer-reviewed study helps expalin why the climate models fail consistently: the under estimation of both the Sun's impact and a powerful negative feedback ('ocean thermostat').
"A report in the December 3, 2010, issue of Science has reinforced what many scientists have suspected all along: variation in the Sun's output causes significant change in Earth's climate.....This new work indicates that even small variations in the Sun's output can have significant affect here on Earth. This is unsurprising, since the energy that drives Earth's climate comes from the Sun. Monsoon floods and decades long droughts are both part of the natural variation driven by our neighborhood star, but every climate fluctuation that causes human discomfort is blamed on anthropogenic global warming.....Their [Marchitto et al.] work is in agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to radiative forcing. Here is their description of the work: The influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate over centennial to millennial time scales is the subject of considerable debate. The change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric and tropospheric circulation patterns.....This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium. In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) [IPCC climate models] lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the atmospheric circulation itself to strengthen under reduced radiative forcing." [Thomas M. Marchitto, Raimund Muscheler, Joseph D. Ortiz, Jose D. Carriquiry, Alexander van Geen 2010; Science 3 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6009 pp. 1378-1381]
Read here. French scientists, J.-L. Le Mouël et al., determine that solar activity has major impact on temperatures across the world. Both major global warming and global cooling periods can be attributed to associated solar activity.
"We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature." [Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman 2008; C.R. Geoscience, 340: 421-430]
Read here. The number of major volcanic eruptions has diminished over the last two decades, resulting in a significantly cleaner stratosphere that allows more solar energy to strike the earth's surface. The net result: at least 50% of modern "global warming" is due to less volcanic activity.
"Since 1997, when Pinatubo’s aerosol settled out, the stratosphere has been exceptionally clear.....Half or more of the warming since 1995 may due to the lack of large volcanic eruptions.....That's about 0.13°C.....The remaining climate change is presumably caused by other forces, such as solar variability, El Nino, Atlantic AMO warming in 1995, lower Albedo and maybe even a little greenhouse gas."
Read here. James Hansen, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists base frightening climate calamities (20 to 80-foot sea level increases) on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause an "amplified" increase in polar temperatures. Actual scientific researchers decided to investigate the validity of the polar-amplification hypothesis.
The nine researchers [White et al. 2010] examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.
"In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past several decades, White et al. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."" [White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010.]
Read here and here. IPCC climate models and those of major countries are designed to fail with significant predictability. Why?
Besides all climate models being purposefully designed to focus on human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming, none of the climate models are able to simulate cloud impact and cloud coverage correctly (or even with a modicum of accuracy). Clouds are beyond even the most powerful computers and virtual simulations, which means the climate models will always produce incorrect results moving forward. As a prominent scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research recently stated:
"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future."
Despite this significant model shortcoming affecting all climate models, more empirical evidence is being accumulated by both satellites and climate experts that indicate clouds have a much greater impact on temperatures than CO2 levels in the atmosphere than previously understood. As the graph below indicates, global temperatures appear to be driven by sunlight reaching the earth's surface, as regulated by cloud coverage, not by CO2 increases.
Climate experts are now concluding that research must focus on clouds, with many scientists considering the possibility that a 1% or less change in cloud coverage could explain most of the past changes in global temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: The scaled red NCDC monthly global temperature anomaly curve and the monthly cumulative CO2 increase are superimposed on the satellite reflected sunlight chart. The original satellite chart was flipped vertically so that the maximum sunlight striking the surface measurement would be at the top.
Read here. Utilizing 85 years of actual scientific data and analysis, scientists from the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) published a book, Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas, that explains how the Arctic temperature and sea ice conditions are driven by natural forces, not human CO2 emissions. The authors also mock the CO2-based climate models that the IPCC Climategate scientists solely rely on:
"They state “where data do exist, we should prefer data to computer models”; they believe model projections of future ice area fluctuations are unreliable. Actually, they have some deliciously scathing remarks about climate models.
“The models neglect natural fluctuations because they have no means of incorporating them, and put the entire blame for climate changes since the 19th century on human activity.”"
Read here. Hysterical global warming alarmists keep claiming that polar sea ice melt is due to increasing human CO2 emissions. This is extreme wishful thinking on their part since recent research finds black soot as being the major factor for polar sea ice loss. h/t: Steve Goddard
"Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land.....But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming....."A surprisingly large temperature response is caused by a surprisingly small amount of impurities in snow in polar regions."....."When soot is there it heats the snow. It acts like a little toaster oven."....."Black carbon in snow causes about three times the temperature change as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Zender says. "The climate is more responsive to this than [to] anything else we know.""
Read here. At one time, the hubris of global warming scientists led them to believe their climate models could explain/predict the future ENSO variations. As usual, Mother Nature made fools of the scientists, so they went back to investigate what they and their models could actually explain/predict about ENSO.
End result of peer-reviewed study?
"...they state that "it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change."....."it is not clear at this stage which way ENSO variability will tip ... As far as we know, it could intensify, weaken, or even undergo little change depending on the balance of changes in the underlying processes."....."by a team of twelve researchers hailing from six different countries (Australia, France, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States), wherein they review the findings of what they describe as "a hierarchy of mathematical models [that] have been used to explain the dynamics, energetics, linear stability and nonlinearity of ENSO,""
"The authors write that "the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a naturally occurring fluctuation," whereby "on a timescale of two to seven years, the eastern equatorial Pacific climate varies between anomalously cold (La Niña) and warm (El Niño) conditions," and that "these swings in temperature are accompanied by changes in the structure of the subsurface ocean, variability in the strength of the equatorial easterly trade winds, shifts in the position of atmospheric convection, and global teleconnection patterns associated with these changes that lead to variations in rainfall and weather patterns in many parts of the world," which end up affecting "ecosystems, agriculture, freshwater supplies, hurricanes and other severe weather events worldwide.""
Back in February, Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, did an interview with the BBC. Out of that interview came some very significant revelations that boarded on AGW heresy, including:
"neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
There was no significant warming
from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global
temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
The IPCC models may have
overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases,
underestimated natural variability, or both.
This also suggests that there is a
systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models
just from this factor alone.
The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
There is a tendency in the IPCC
reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s)
most likely to be read by policy makers."
Now, several months later, Jones has published a paper with others that concludes the 1970's land surface cooling was due to cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, Jones and company are now recognizing that natural, large-scale factors are forcing global changes in temperatures besides the IPCC favored trace gas CO2 from human emissions.
Update: More fascinating information, including this chart immediately below, that seemingly supports the ocean oscillation and land temperature relationship of the Jone's paper.
And apparently, Jones and company are not claiming that human CO2 is the cause of the ocean oscillations that are associated with sea temperature changes in the first place. Gee, I wonder why.....could it be that CO2 levels have zero influence on ocean cycles/oscillations as the below charts suggest? Or, phrased another way, could the actual CO2 level at a given time be the cause of the given peak/valley of an ocean oscillation at that same point in time?
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (like other ocean oscillations) is a climate pattern with a mode of variability, which seems to naturally occur regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"A climate pattern may come in the form of a regular cycle, like the diurnal cycle or the seasonal cycle; a quasi periodic event, like El Niño; or a highly irregular event, such as a volcanic winter.....A mode of variability is a climate pattern with identifiable characteristics, specific regional effects, and often oscillatory behavior.....the mode of variability with the greatest effect on climates worldwide is the seasonal cycle, followed by El Niño-Southern Oscillation, followed by thermohaline circulation."
Other well-known modes of variability include: The Antarctic oscillation; The Arctic oscillation; The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation; The Indian Ocean Dipole; The Madden–Julian oscillation; The North Atlantic oscillation; The Pacific decadal oscillation; The Pacific-North American teleconnection pattern; The Quasi-biennial oscillation.
Of course, Jones is well aware that climate patterns, like ENSO, have existed for thousands of years, well before any traces of industrial CO2 entered the atmosphere. Again, these climate patterns with large variability are happening regardless of CO2 levels. (click on images to enlarge)
The above charts have the historical atmospheric CO2 levels (red curve) simply super-imposed on the various oscillations. For more information on natural ocean oscillations, go here, here and here.
[Note: Other prominent deniers of natural factors being principal agents in climate change are also starting to see the light.]
Read here. Climate. Cycles. Change. Put the three together and voilà, you get 'C3'. We've always been influenced by the idea that natural climate change is constantly happening, which causes oscillating temperature cycles from cold to warm back to cold, and etc.
Now, there is more confirming evidence as an analysis was done on thermometer temperatures going back to 1880 on widely separated geographical regions. What did the analysis find? It would seem a natural sine wave - a cycle that switches from cold-to-warm-back-to-cold-etc. exists. Isn't nature just amazing?
"Taking these ten locations from across the globe andsuperimposing the anomaly data produced a sine wave-like pattern with distinct cooling from the early 1940s to mid-1970s followed by warming to present; for many of the locations the older data was warmer, or at least as warm as present. Now I had seen this before with many individual stations, but it really impressed me to see the pattern matching from such far-flung locations.....So is this “sine wave” the true climate signal? It would seem so, although we can’t expect it always to be so regular. Choosing stations that are more closely geographically located does give a more homogeneous shape to the wave.....For us the take-home message of this study was simply how widespread and consistent the wave pattern is, and this, ultimately is very convincing of the veracity of the arguments against CO2 as a primary cause of current warming. From the physics I don’t doubt it has a role in warming, but its role needs to be disentangled from the large magnitude natural climate swings that are clearly present all over the world..."
Read here. Okay, okay....the title should read 50% of east Europe's warming is due to cleaner air, and for the record, up to 20% of western Europe's warming is due to the same. Literally, the EU's own clean air regulations and controls have caused major warming, without the help of CO2. And, the result will be less warming in the future since there is less pollution to clean from the skies.
"Over Europe, the marked solar radiation increase since the 1980s is thought to have contributed to the observed large continental warming.....Statistically linking local visibility changes with temperature variations, we estimate that the reduction in low-visibility conditions could have contributed on average to about 10–20% of Europe’s recent daytime warming and to about 50% of eastern European warming. Large improvements in air quality and visibility already achieved in Europe over the past decades may mean that future reductions in the frequency of low-visibility events will be limited, possibly leading to less rapid regional warming.”"
The other major conclusion from this study is that climate models are worthless - a topic we've visited often.
"Unfortunately, current regional climate models are probably not ready to reproduce the physics underlying these trends.....As yet, state-of-the-art regional aerosol models have been shown not to be able to simulate with sufficient skill the total aerosol burden over Europe. Simulating trends in low-visibility phenomena, and their impact on climate, therefore remains an open challenge for models."
Read here. It's amazing what you learn from reading blogs. I had no idea that Hawaii once had glaciers (Hawaii?). But thousands of years ago, during the last glaciation, Hawaii's highest peaks sported glacier ice. And, this glacier ice's retreat and surging during the end of the glaciation age left clues that natural Atlantic Ocean current oscillations were the primary factor affecting the tropical Pacific - not the trace gas CO2.
"However, the new research found that the glacier on Mauna Kea began to re-advance to almost its ice age size about 15,400 years ago. That coincides almost exactly with a major slowdown of what scientists call the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC, in the North Atlantic Ocean.....But scientists have found that the AMOC does more than just keep northern Europe habitable. Its effects can extend far beyond that...“The new data from Mauna Kea, along with other findings from geological archives preserved in oceans and lakes in many other areas, show that the decline of the AMOC basically caused climate changes all over the world,” Clark said. “These connections are pretty remarkable, a current pattern in the North Atlantic affecting glacier development thousands of miles away in the Hawaiian Islands...“The global impact of the AMOC changes,” Clark added, “was just massive.”"