Claims of rapid, accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal global warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases means that should be happening...especially for the oceans that represent about 72% of the Earth's surface...yet the latest empirical evidence shows the above adjectives are big fat lies when it comes to this gigantic thermal sink...Ooops...those stubborn facts strike again.....
(click on pie chart to enlarge)
Ocean expert Bob Tisdale's recent article delineated the various warming trends of the key ocean basins.
His dataset for the adjacent chart comes from the ARGO system, which is the most sophisticated technology in use for measuring ocean depth warming. (More on that dataset here.)
Previously, 'C3' published an article about the non-"unequivocal" nature of global warming. That article also provided insight as to locations of the much feared "dangerous" and "rapid" global warming - turns out the only locations are the concrete/asphalt environs of airports and major urban/metro areas.
So, what does the actual ocean-deep warming empirical evidence presented on this chart tell us? (Remember, this is the warmed-up data presented after bureaucrat sceintists adjusted the raw measurment data.)
#1. On a per century trend basis, global warming of the oceans is barely happening.
#2. Unequivocal ocean warming is not taking place - note that neither the Pacific or North Atlantic exhibit a warming that is climate significant (in fact, one could claim their warming is likely a function of measurement error and/or those "adjustments").
#3. The oceans are not going to be boiling from CO2 emissions as predicted by NASA's top climate expert.
#4. If 72% of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.
Hmmm...those stubborn climate facts can be sooo annoying.
CAGW proponents have a long-held belief that CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the Antarctica continent along with the surrounding oceans...further, this out-of-control warming is quickly melting sea ice and the South Pole's massive ice sheets...turns out, it's a case of unrepentant denial of climate reality.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Way back in 1988, a NASA climate expert gave testimony that the 'high latitudes' (i.e. polar) would experience greater warming due to growth of human greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2 emissions.
This prediction was seized upon by global warming advocates as "proof" that the South Pole's unprecedented warming would melt sea ice and cause melting ice sheets to collapse, raising ocean levels and thus submerging worldwide coastal areas.
Indeed, there is strong evidence that GHGs have risen considerably - even to a greater extent then the feared 'business-as-usual' scenario NASA/GISS experts promulgated.
Yet the newest empirical research completely counters the fears and beliefs of the CAGW crowd: over the satellite era, some 30+ years, Antarctica's ice sheets have slightly grown and the South Pole's sea ice extent is at record levels.
Then there is the proverbial elephant in the CAGW room: the Antarctica region is not warming, per the advanced satellite technology of NASA. Those stubborn facts are indisputable and unequivocal.
Yet, denial of this empirical scientific evidence remains widespread, preventing a rational debate about the real implications of the ongoing natural climate change.
[Update: A reader inquired as to the correlation between the temperature anonmalies and monthly CO2 (ppm) levels - it was 0.015. This figure suggests that seeking a link between CO2 and South Pole temps may be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.]
Many stalwart advocates of the propaganda that global-warming-will-kill-us-all "tipping point" fiasco are currently eating some humble crow...their promise of the hottest U.S. year ever did not happen...and NOAA offers a simple answer as to why not.....
Per the Real Science climate site, this NOAA chart shows why the 'hottest-evah' did not happen in 2014.
Simply, well over half of the U.S. experienced cooler temperatures than normal.
And the warmer temperatures out west were more likely the result of an El Nino brewing than due to human CO2 emissions.
As this map suggests, CO2-caused "global" warming is highly suspect since normal regional weather/climate oscillations easily overwhelm its impact.
And as the satellites report, global warming over the last 18 years is not what one would call 'robust.'
According to the IPCC, GHG's are well beyond the business-as-usual scenario that James Hansen and NASA identified as leading to global warming "hell" ... big problem with that though.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This IPCC AR5 SPM chart reveals some very interesting information about greenhouse gases. The chart plots GHG group emissions over the period from 1970-2010. (chart source)
The adjacent 'C3' chart, re-plots the same information using a simple column representation, plus depicting the fitted trend growth for each GHG group's emissions.
Some key points:
1. From 1970 to 2000, total GHG emissions grew by 1.3% per year.
2. Over the period of 2000-2010, that growth increased to 2.2% per year - a robust 70% growth in the annual rate.
3. Total GHG emissions jumped significantly from 2000-2010, to a historical record, with the combined CO2 emission groups being the principal contributors.
5. Methane emissions essentially stalled over 20 years but then started to increase over the last period.
6.Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride), which are supposed to be reduced under the terms of the Kyoto protocol, have increased by 8x since 1970 but still only represent less than one-tenth of one percent of all GHG emissions.
7. Although the growth rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels slowed a bit from 1980 to 1990, it's growth started accelerating during the 90's.
8. The combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Clearly, and unequivocally, the GHG emissions have not only sustained the business-as-usual (BAU) growth path that so concerns prominent advocates of climate alarmism, but over the last 10 year period the 'BAU' scenario levels for the demonized CO2 have jumped significantly (see top 3 charts on this page)
A little history: The BAU greenhouse gas emissions path was made famous by NASA's James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony introduced the public to the dangerous and accelerating global warming potential of Scenario 'A'. This scenario was determined/computed to be a direct result of not reducing/restraining the GHGs emissions, especially fossil fuel CO2.
From a famous 1988 peer reviewed article by Hansen et al.:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
Switching from that history to the present, as the IPCC documents in the latest AR5 SPM (WGIII), we are living in the emission scenario of unrestrained growth - growth beyond the feared 1988 'BAU'. Hansen defined unrestrained BAU growth of GHGs as 1.5% per year, and now the IPCC reports it's growing at a 2.2% per annum rate.
In the opinion of climate alarmist advocates, this feared 'Beyond-BAU' growth means that radiative forcings (watts per square meter) will dramatically increase, resulting in out-of-control warming, multiple positive feedback loops and ever greater and more frequent climate/weather catastrophes.
And these alarmist opinions are due to the very costly and "sophisticated" IPCC/climate agencies computer crystal balls model simulations - dominated by said CO2 and other trace GHG emissions - that have proven to be such unreliable prediction tools. Recall that those climate model temperature prediction 'Ooopsies' are a major embarrassing problem plaguing the current reliance of climate science on unproven virtual simulations.
Just to add a little more context to the 'Beyond-BAU' fears of accelerating CO2 emissions, there is this article:
"Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong  rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels, putting the total emitted this year on track for 40bn tonnes. That means the global ‘carbon budget’, calculated as the total governments can afford to emit without pushing temperatures higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels, is likely to be used up within just one generation, or in thirty years from now."
Finally, in the IPCC's own AR5 SPM words:
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expectedto persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 °C to 4.8 °C compared to pre-industrial levels."
Conclusion: The alarmist science community and the IPCC's worst case GHG scenarios have been attained. Yet global temperatures (i.e. accelerated warming) have not responded accordingly. As one could surmise..."something is rotten in the state of computer climate science."
As the mainstream press gets ready to unleash an untold number of the "warmest year ever" propaganda stories for year-end 2014, it begs the question...in the context of long-term climate change, does the "warmest" or "coldest" for any given year matter in any meaningful way?...actually, it does not, per the empirical evidence.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
The global warming slowdown (or "hiatus," "stall," "plateau," "pause" and etc.) has been widely discussed across a broad spectrum of web and print publications, including prominent science journals and peer-reviewed research, which indicates a 100% acceptance of the extended slowdown.
The realization and analysis of this lack of significant warming has produced a cornucopia of studies and expert opinions as to why the global climate went into a completely unexpected stall mode - so far, there are some 50+ scientific rationales that have been put forward to explain the phenomenon.
Since climate science remains unsettled, the current consensus is that there is a non-consensus regarding the globe's dramatic deviation form the CO2-centric "expert" climate models. Indeed, there is no shortage of empirical evidence documenting the ever-enlarging discrepancy.
Unfortunately, despite the indisputable and consensus scientific recognition that a temperature plateau exists, and the lively debate within science circles as to why, there are elite green alarmists who claim the 'standstill' is a hoax or does not exist - essentially, that is sheer climate-change denialism by deniers performing in anti-science, denialist roles.
On top of such denial travesties, the mainstream press is trying to change the focus away from the significance of the global warming slowdown and climate model failure to the incredibly small increase in warming that allows them to shout report that 2014 is the "warmest" year ever.
The term "warmest" (as in day, week, month, spring, summer, autumn, winter, year, decade and so on) has become the last propaganda refuge of those who either deny the global pause or just want everyone to forget its importance. Utilizing the terminology of "warmest" reveals the ultimate cherry-picking agenda.
However, since the Little Ice Age (LIA) end during the 1800's, the world has been constantly producing new "warmest-ever" records - it's entirely normal within the climate record, and will happen even when a temperature change hiatus exists.
To that point, both warm and cold years can coexist during longer periods of temperature stability, as multiple global and regional records demonstrate. In addition, it's unquestionable that severe/extreme weather events can take place, regardless if it is the "coldest" or "warmest" year.
As the adjacent chart depicts, rapid cooling and warming climate changes can occur very quickly. The chart plots both the acceleration and deceleration of temperatures (ie, per century trends) over moving 12-month periods (light red curve) since 1850.
Over short-term horizons, global temperatures have been known to accelerate/decelerate at a ±70°C rate.
Since 1999, there have been periods when temps increased at a +35°C/century rate, which would obviously produce some very warm years; while during the same 15-year span, there have been periods when temps decelerated ay -39°C/century rate, which would have obviously produced interim cold periods. This is what the empirical evidence shows.
Now think about that last paragraph. Over the last 15 years there has been incredible shifts in temp trends, yet the mainstream press doesn't report on that. Instead the press reports excessively about a given period being all of 1 to 2 hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year. The robust alarmist hysteria of "journalism" is sadly evident 24/7.
Okay, back to climate reality and the basic facts: Temperature changes. Trends increase, then decrease. It just happens. It's natural. It will continue to do so. And it has occurred since instrumental climate records have been kept and proxy temperature reconstructions have been created.
Speaking of instrumental records, back to the included chart for more evidence of extreme climate change. The HadCRUT4 instrumental record since 1850 shows some big extremes, which have been identified on the chart as those periods exhibiting temperature trends greater than ±50°C.
Those specific warming and cooling extreme incidents have been identified with the years they took place, and there are some common traits recognizable.
All the huge extreme changes took place over 40 years ago, with the vast majority being prior to 1950.
The huge CO2 emissions have not produced a single global warming acceleration extreme since 1951, over 60 years ago.
Since the 1970's, the climate extremes' range appears to be narrowing, with each accelerated warming and cooling trend rate getting smaller.
And when major (minor too) extremes occur, the climate system does not hit a "tipping point" of positive feedbacks. Instead, the natural climate responds with negative feedbacks to bring the climate back to some level of short equilibrium.
The chart also plots the moving 180-month (15 year) acceleration/deceleration of temperature trends (the dark blue curve).
Clearly, despite all the modern CO2 emissions, all the gyrations of the 12-month per century trends, and all the recent "warmest" years ever, the 15-year global warming trend has not deviated much from the past. Statistically, as of October 2014, that trend is below the median of all 180-month trends that took place in the past ( 1,801 1,799 trend datapoints to be exact).
Sidebar factoid: During 1922, the 15-year per century warming trend reached a level that was 3 times greater than today's 15-year trend - that is a trend sans the gigantic cumulative human CO2 emissions resident in today's atmosphere. Is 1922 the only pre-1950 period when the 15-year trend exceeds today's? Nope (remember, October 2014 is below the historical median).
What does all of the above mean?
Today's global warming is neither civilization-ending, dangerous, rapid, nor quickly accelerating. It continues at a long-term pace that humans have not markedly influenced, per the empirical evidence. Thus, the proper response to a claim of a new "warmest" year is appropriately: 'so what?'
As shown, those stubborn facts of empirical evidence are relentless. The continuing long-term, natural warming climate trend since the LIA has been a constant, yet combined with amazing short-term periods of abrupt change that produce exceptionally warm years and cold years.
These are the scientific climate facts. They are unequivocal, immutable, indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable and non-debatable. It's called natural climate. It happens.
Now, all of the above should not go without the following caveats: today's temperature trends are not forever. Trends are not predictions nor projections. As the plotted evidence indicates, the climate can change rapidly, going from cooling to warming back to cooling over short time spans. Any cool/warm trend has the potential to become a much longer, climate significant trend. And it's reasonable caveat to assume CO2 emissions have an impact, but likely a very trivial one (and easily overwhelmed) versus the natural climate change impact.
There is no expert (of course, that doesn't keep most experts from speculating) who can predict how much longer the pause will continue and whether it will morph into global cooling or a return to greater warming. And by the way, if the latter, many people are already debating that potential and what it will mean - more confirmation that climate science is never "settled."
When one connects the dots, so to speak, at the end of the day there have been absolutely zero climate models and/or experts that predicted the recent empirical climate outcomes that the above chart delineates - that's correct, none.
And finally, the infamous "97%" scientist consensus that CAGW proponents often fall back on when empirical evidence, such as above, eviscerates their CO2-warming alarmism, has been seriously and embarrassingly debunked, multiple times. Read here and here.
Note: Source for monthly HadCRUT4 anomalies used for chart. Utilized Excel to calculate 12-month and 180-month (moving) slopes (ie. trends), then multiplied by 1200 to produce per century trends. Then used Excel to plot per century trends.
The mainstream media's current du jour "climate science" claim is that 2014 is headed towards being the world's "warmest" year, ever.
Unfortunately, for the media that pushes the hysterical, that claim is actually without statistical merit, since the uncertainty error bars are large. In statistical terms, there's a darn good chance it's not the warmest year.
Then there is the jumbo elephant in the press room that "journalists" flat-out don't acknowledge, let alone report: the state-of-the-art climate satellite technology completely undercuts the world's "warmest year" hype.
And then there is the whole issue of where exactly is all this "dangerous," "out-of-control" warming taking place. For example, is it happening here in the U.S.?
Based on the multitude of anti-science, exaggerated "warmest-year-ever" paragraphs being produced by American reporters, one would think the good citizens of the U.S. are in the midst of the civilization-ending climate-fry.
But, as usual, the empirical evidence reveals the absolute distortions the media fabricates, per the latest U.S. climate records from NOAA.
Case in point: the adjacent graph is a plot for the last 26 years (312 months) of U.S. temperatures through November 2014 - since 1988. The red curve is a 60-month average that clearly indicates "global warming" in the U.S. has gone AWOL for at least a decade - on 'hiatus,' so to speak.
Then there is the 60-month plot of CO2 emissions (black dots), which obviously tells a different story then the press fabrication that the "rapid" global warming we are "suffering" from is a direct result of human CO2 emissions.
Hmmm...clearly temperatures do not react to CO2 as those crack science reporters "report."
This NOAA empirical evidence is unequivocal and indisputable, yet the mainstream media refuses to inform the American public of these most basic climate record facts.
So why did we pick 1988 as a starting point for this analysis?
Back in the summer of 1988, NASA had its climate expert, James Hansen, testify before the U.S. Senate. In his testimony, he predicted that across the world temperatures would rise dangerously due to human's increasing CO2 emissions.
As a result of the accelerating temperatures, Hansen foretold of major climate catastrophes that would plague the U.S. and the world within 20 some years, if business-as-usual CO2 emissions were not curtailed.
It's now 26 years later, and as the above graph depicts, global warming has stalled; CO2 emissions have not been curtailed in the least. And for the U.S. (look closely at the graph), continental temperatures actually experienced a cooling trend stretching over a decade.
The dramatic climate change disasters that NASA and Hansen predicted? Not even close to happening.
And those are the stubborn facts - much to the chagrin of the UN bureaucrats, national government elites and mainstream hacks journalists.
Additional global and regional temperature charts exhibiting the lack of CO2 influence.
Note: US temperature dataset can be downloaded from here. NOAA/NCDC reports absolute temperatures and these can be converted to anomalies using the 1901-2000 baseline averages that NOAA provides.
If CO2-induced climate change is defined as extreme weather disasters, then recent years are proving to be a bust...likewise, the much feared rapid and ferocious global warming predicted - from CO2, of course - has turned into an insignificant pussy cat, per the GISS/NASA climate records.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
By year 2050, how much warmer will it be?
As the climate "experts" and $billion$ computer models have proven decisively, they are completely clueless when it comes to predicting future global temperatures.
Fifteen years ago, this graph's red curve, representing temperature trends, was tracking right along with the CO2 grey curve - such that, as of the end of September 1999, the 10-year temp trend was on a 2050AD warming pace of +1.1ºC.
But as the adjacent chart now reveals, by end of September 2014, that previous +1.1ºC trend has changed to a -0.03ºC cooling trend despite the continuous acceleration of atmospheric CO2 levels. A powerful testament to the overwhelming significance of natural climate change that far exceeds the influence of of a trace gas such as CO2.
And remember, not a single IPCC or NASA/GISS "expert" predicted this outcome - just the opposite in fact.
As the graph's red plot depicts, global warming trends have been on a deceleration path for an extended period, indicating a strong likelihood that global warming by 2050 will be nowhere close to he current official predictions.
Did we mention 'pussy cat' warming yet?
Obviously, the "settled" science of slam-dunk global warming is in shambles. And natural climate change made it so, much to the chagrin of those elites pushing "consensus" anthropogenic dogma.
Without doubt, in the scheme of urgent, priority issues facing the nation - global warming ain't one of them, which the American public already knows and reflects.
Science "journalists" who promulgate climate change hysteria have been recently pushing the fearmongering of the "hottest" year meme (or "warmest" if you prefer), which is essentially a lie...apparently, both the world's food crops and the public are simply now ignoring the proclamations of these chicken little, climate-cult doomsday criers.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.
Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.
Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.
And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.
On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.
It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.
Every time there is a forest fire (ie wildfire) global warming alarmists, like a pack of Pavlov's dogs, start hysterically howling that human CO2 caused the recent incendiary event...while at the same time claiming their predictions of increasing wildfire damage from CO2-warming are coming true...however, like always, the empirical evidence proves the alarmists are without scientific portfolio.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Let's cut to the chase - are human CO2 emissions causing an increase in U.S. forest acreage being decimated by flames?
The adjacent chart is a plot of U.S. wildfire acreage going back to 1926, through the end of 2013. The green curve represents acres burnt (in millions).
In addition, the chart includes the plot of lumber harvested (billion board-feet) from U.S. forests and atmospheric CO2 levels over the same approximate time span. The brown curve is the lumber harvest; the grey curve is CO2 (ppm).
What does the chart indicate?
Wildfire acreage burnt collapsed after the 1930s. Not only did this collapse coincide with a growth of atmospheric CO2 levels from human CO2 emissions, the huge decrease in acres burnt took place when the harvesting of lumber from U.S. forests grew massively.
Then, as the total amount of harvested lumber declined and reached a significantly lower level - due to new environmental regulations - the number of acres burnt each year started to incrementally increase during the 1990's.
Intuitively this makes sense. As the dead and disease-infected trees started to pile up from lack of harvesting due to environmentalist concerns and government regulations, the U.S. forests became wildfire tinderboxes, easily set off by lightening and human carelessness - the law of unintended consequences from passionate 'green' policies strikes again.
Per the statistical relationships, both board-feet harvested and CO2 levels have an inverse correlation (-0.6 and -0.5, respectively) with the acreage scorched, across the entire time span.
Conclusion: It's always dangerous to draw firm conclusions from just statistics, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that both lumbering and higher CO2 levels makes for less wildfires. The record clearly shows that wildfire damage over the last two decades are not unprecedented, and it remains well below the horrendous amount of acres burned during the early 20th century. For policymakers, the sanest recommendation towards improving U.S. forest health is to increase the amount of allowed lumbering, thus thinning forests of tinderbox materials; plus, to recognize any future CO2 increases as a potential contributor to healthy forest growth.
Note: The wildfire acreage burned during years 1926-1959 and the lumber board-feet harvested came from this congressional testimony by scientific forestry expert; post 1959 data from this government agency site. CO2 datasets found here. The chart's right axis represents both atmospheric CO2 levels and harevested board-feet. For the latter, the largest number at the top, '1300', reads as 13 billion board-feet; for CO2, it would read 1,300 ppm.
Even the most die hard, green climate scientist who spouts CO2 catastrophe hysteria does not really believe in the unicorn of climate mythology - the mythical CO2 'control knob' - an anti-science myth pushed by the likes of Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Obama and scientist Leo DiCaprio...and there is a very substantial reason why scientists don't believe it...all the empirical evidence easily refutes its existence.....
(click on to enlarge)
Climate scientists who are not of the payroll of 'Big Green' NGOs, nor dependent on government research grants, find it much easier to speak out against the utter nonsense and myths of anti-CO2 activists and the slimy crony-greens.
An example: As climate scientist Judith Curry indicates, there is no basis for a magical 'knob' that would allow today's politicians and bureaucrats to dial-in a desired climate outcome for next month, or the next year, or the next decade, or the next century.
The facts, simply stated: There is no science, no computer model, nor any available mechanism(s) that would allow today's humans to tweak CO2 emissions a certain way in order to produce a future climate of specific attributes by, say, 2050.
It's what is referred to as, "no frakking way."
The inner circle of establishment climate science knows this, yet due to political agenda reasons, they are forced to deliver lip service to the ludicrous 'knob' analogies.
The massive failure of billion$ climate models and the ongoing 17+ year pause in global warming provide the necessary and vivid testimonials to the fallacy of a climate thermostat knob, whether controlling natural and/or human CO2 emissions.
In addition, there is the latest empirical evidence that completely invalidates the 'knob' assertion.
This adjacent plot of 5-year temperature change versus 5-year atmospheric CO2 level change is based on the most recent empirical evidence published by the government's GISS/NASA scientists (and they happen to be some of the largest proponents of chicken little global warming calamities).
This empirical science published by NASA is undeniable, and most alarmist scientists accept, although grudgingly - the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in temperature are, at best, significantly lame weak.
Indeed, the two dataset plots reveal zero relationship with a correlation that produces a r2 barely above zero. A non-existent relationship from 1880 to the end of August 2014,
Look at the green and red fitted trends. Obviously, the green CO2 trend exhibits rapid, accelerating and even exponential growth after 1950. And the global temps? The red temperature trend depicts very little growth in temperature change, and currently exhibits a deceleration that climate models and "experts" never predicted.
In fact, one could surmise that the temperature changes reflect a natural cycle of ups/downs (ie. a pattern), which the accelerating CO2 growth has absolutely zero influence on.
Ergo, the 'control knob' proposition has the same likelihood of reality as those space alien abductions one reads about, Big Foot enrolling at Univ. of Washington, Congress balancing the budget, or Earth developing a climate of "boiling" oceans.
Which is why at least 97% of actual climate scientists categorically reject this particular brand of Hollywood anti-science fantasy.
And yes, one can be a member of the 97% who believe humans have a warming influence on climate, and yet, still completely reject the existence of this particular mythical CO2 unicorn.
Note: Temperature dataset; CO2 datasets. Excel was used to calculate 5-yr changes (ie. differences); and to produce plots and 6th order polynomials. To calculate a 5-yr. temp. change example: subtract the August 2009 temp. anomaly from the August 2104 anomaly. The same subtraction method used to calculate 5-yr. CO2 level (ppm) changes. Starting with January 1885, the 5-yr chg. calculations can be made for each subsequent month (GISS/NASA monthly dataset commences at January 1880).
The climate science is indisputable...the known physics requires that each tonne of new CO2 emissions will have a smaller impact than the previous tonne...there is no escaping the actual logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming.....
(click on to enlarge)
The known climate science of global warming is not a mystery. It is well documented climate physics that just about every scientist agrees with. And for the layperson, it's not terribly difficult to confirm.
3. A spreadsheet to make the necessary calculations and then plot the outcome.
These items were used to produce the adjacent chart. Five different time periods were chosen, then the warming (degree C) per CO2 tonne was calculated for each time period.
The resulting datapoints were then plotted and connected with a fitted trend (6th order).
Clearly, this actual climate science empirical evidence substantiates the known climate physics.
With this confirmation, one could assume that all warming since 1850 was due to human CO2 emissions, but then the logical conclusion is cast in concrete science - CO2's impact is shrinking towards zero, as observed, and likely will have even a smaller global warming impact in the future.
Note: The chart's fitted trend provides a sense of direction in the past but it has unreliable predictive qualities (if any). Why 1950-2013? Because the IPCC claims human CO2 is principal cause of warming since 1950. Why 1988-2013? Because in 1988, NASA's James Hansen testified that CO2 warming was accelerating and dangerous (it's been neither). Why 1997-2013? Because, it's been approximately 17 years with the 'paused' global warming. The 1850-2014 period assumes 17.5 gigatonnes of CO2 for first 7 months of 2014. Used 12-month HadCRUT averages to calculate deg/tonne.
For Democrats, green-fascists, liberals, leftists, progressives, socialists and all the various big government types, objective, non-agenda science is the enemy ... especially when it comes to climate science empirical evidence ... those stubborn facts can be sooo cruel.....
(click on to enlarge)
Adjacent are the top 5 reasons the global warming hysteria has failed.
They are called empirical evidence - datasets of temperature observations confirming there has been no statistically significant warming for over 15+ years.
The "consensus" "experts" and billion dollar computer climate models predicted that human CO2 emissions would generate accelerating, catastrophic global warming.
CAGW alarmists can no longer deny the physics and the inconvenient climate empirical records...the feared trace gas CO2 is proving to be a toothless boogieman...tipping point global warming is off the agenda due to ever lower CO2 sensitivity.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
WUWT had a recent article regarding the continuous diminishing impact of CO2 on global temperatures.
The indisputable physics of climate science states that for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, that molecule will have a smaller impact than the one before it.
This diminishing return of CO2 is a well known logarithmic function, as described here.
This most recent article elaborates even further on the ever-sooner trivial CO2 influence, which the author summarizes in this manner:
===>"The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile."
A visualization of the diminishing CO2 impact is revealed by the adjacent top graph. Its plot is a simple ratio of total temperature change divided by atmospheric CO2 (ppm) change since January 1850.
As the graph clearly depicts, the ratio declines in the direction of zero as the growing total of added CO2 produces less and less global warming. Ergo, the climate's sensitivity to CO2 emission is shrinking, constantly.
The bottom graph is the same ratio but only for the shorter period, dating from January 1950 to June 2014. Obviously, the huge increase of atmospheric CO2 from the modern period's industrial/consumer engine has indeed produced a diminishing impact on global temperatures.
This is the empirical evidence that the IPCC and CAGW alarmists never want to talk about as it provides the proof that human CO2 emissions will not be causing massive climate calamities. Yes...those same scary catastrophes always being portrayed by the 97% "consensus" Hollywood science and the robustly gullible mainstream press.
Note: Using January 1850 as the base temperature anomaly and CO2 level month, the total change for both parameters was calculated for each subsequent month. Then for each subsequent month, the total temperature change from the base month was divided by the total CO2 ppm change - a ratio, maybe best described as the amount of temperature change produced by a molecule of CO2. The HadCRUT4 monthly global dataset was used for numerator calculations; denominator calculated from the combined CO2 datasets found here and here.
Leftists, progressives, Democrats, liberals, socialists, crony-capitalists, communists, politicians, UN bureaucrats, crony-scientists, mainstream journalists and Hollywood celebrities are acknowledged as the world's climate-porn stars, as well as being in dire need of a basic manual titled 'Climate for Dummies'...their statements regarding global warming and climate change continue to be living proof that stuck-on-stupid and cluelessness are in a constant battle to dominate the leftward thinking brain.....
Without going through a complete litany of embarrassing and moronic left-wing climate change comments by the "elites," several from the past few weeks truly stand out:
===> "The planet is running a fever and there are no emergency rooms" - Democrat Senator Markey from Massachusetts
===>"We no longer need storms or hurricanes to produce flooding - it is becoming an everyday occurrence" - Anne Burchard, the Sierra Club
===> "It's kind of like telling a little girl who's trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there's a substantial chance that she'll be killed." - MIT professor Kerry Emanuel regarding critics of his opinion that catastrophic global warming disasters are today's climate
===> "It’s time for climate-change deniers to face reality’ – ‘They’re fiddling while the planet burns" - NY Daily News editorial page
===>"MSNBC segment claims that climate change could make a real ‘Sharknado’ happen" - a Comcast-owned Obama propaganda outlet
===>"And this, to me, is the most important film [Sharknado 2] ever made about climate change. There is no film, TV thing, special anything, more important than this film." - Actor, Judah Friedlander
===> "A new report says redheads might one day be extinct...when climate change brings an end to cool mist, the climate for red hair will also disappear." - Diane Sawyer, a TV "journalist", U.S. ABC News
===>"NYU Professor: Solve climate change by making people smaller" - S. Matthew Liao, instructor of bioethics at New York University
===>"Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.” - obviously, the very "professional" CNN reporter, Bill Weir
Now, climate change comments like these have been part and parcel nonsense from the left-wing nutcases for over 100 years. As can be readily seen here, climate calamities are the 'forever' essential fear-mongering tactics used by elites and disaster-whσres to convince the public. (Additional crazed quotes from the "elites".)
More importantly, these common anti-science fear tactics are completely divorced from current climate science reality, as the empirical records demonstrate (here, here, here,here and here).
So, are the catastrophe rantings and hate emanating from liberal, progressive Democrats a result of some combination of incredible ignorance and stupendous stupidity regarding climate science?
If so, then maybe a book titled 'Climate for Dummies' would be a welcome science reading assignment for left-wing malnourished brains. Needless to say, said book should include a chapter on the science of temperature trends, made as simple as possible for those addicted to global warming calamity-porn.
Our contribution to the book will be the adjacent "Warming" Speedometer, which is a very simple visual aid to help liberal/progressive/Democrats put those really, really hard concepts of per century temperature trends into a proper context. (click on speedometer to enlarge)
For example, this simple decile infographic displays the entire range of 10-year global warming/cooling trends in per century terms since 1860. What could a climate-porn elite learn from this simple visual aid? (And help them from sounding like an uninformed idiot...)
the lowest per century trend (based on 120-month calculations) was reached during 1887
the highest per century trend was reached in 1983
the June 2014 per century trend falls into bottom half of deciles
the June 2014 trend is actually a global cooling trend
that some 31 years after the 1983 peak of 4.3°C warming trend, the temperature trend collapsed to a -0.1°C per century cooling trend.
Conclusions that a progressive/leftist elite might be able to reach from the simple "warming" speedometer of actual empirical evidence?
Hmm...let's see...that the approximate 1.5 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions (since the industrial age began) has not given Earth an accelerating fever that is causing the planet to burn - that's an unavoidable, rational and informed assessment of climate reality. And also that the world's modern climate, through June 2014, experienced a wide range of temperature trends (which are similar to the historical and ancient natural climate gyrations).
But as many have discovered to their dismay, empirical science means that liberal Democrats actually have to connect-the-dots, which apparently the climate-porn disorder prevents.
Note: Highest temperature trends (per century, based on 120-month calculations) for each decile noted on Speedometer (bottom decile also has lowest listed). HadCRUT4 global dataset used in Excel analysis. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Are humans turning Earth into another Venus, an inhabitable planet with temperatures hotter than your Weber grill on the 4th of July? Well...when the empirical dots are connected the scary Venus fate for Earth goes poof....
(click on chart to enlarge)
In a previous post, empirical observations documented the lack of both short-term and long-term warming of the atmosphere.
Another approach to assessing the atmosphere's temperature change is to examine the 10-year changes in the lower troposphere. The graph on the left plots such changes.
Using a satellite dataset that contains 426 monthly temperature measurements, 306 moving 10-year changes can be calculated. This graph plots those 306 data-points (the proverbial 'dots'), plus the cumulative growth in CO2 levels over the same period.
Visually, it is obvious the 10-year temperature changes were dominated by increasing values up till the early 2000's. After that, the 10-year changes decreased consistently, turning from positive to negative. The graph depicts the global atmosphere actually cooling over recent time.
The long increase in 10-year temperature change, and then its subsequent decrease, is confirmed by both the 3-year simple average curve (aqua) and the fitted trend curve (6th order polynomial).
The pale green curve (another fitted trend curve, 6th order) represents the unabated, relentless cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Conclusion: Earth is not turning into Venus. The experts' predictions that human CO2 emissions would turn Earth's atmosphere into a simmering Venus lookalike, resulting in "boiling" oceans, is now substantiated as a crackpot, global warming bogosity - pure anti-science alarmism that was promulgated by establishment science.
Does the above mean that Earth's atmosphere will never warm again? Nope, it will indeed continue to have phases of warming and cooling just as it did in the past, sans Venus conditions, though.....because that is what climates do, just naturally.
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used in Excel to calculate 10-year temperature changes. fitted trends and 3-year average in the above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The just releasedBP Statistical Review includes an updated historical record of CO2 emissions across the world, through 2013.
While China's CO2 emissions have almost tripled since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the U.S. emissions have decreased about 2%.
That U.S. reduction actually is superior to all the world's major regions and entities, as identified by the BP research report. This U.S. reduction (see adjacent chart) took place even though the U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign the 'Protocol.'
With that said, any CO2 emission reduction by the U.S. is being immediately offset by the huge increases happening in other parts of the world. As a result, neither U.S. citizens, nor the world's, are benefiting from any U.S. CO2 reduction efforts.
To make the U.S. CO2 reduction aspirations even more bleak, if America could slash its emissions by 50% for each of the next 85 years, the net impact on global temperatures by 2100AD, at best, might be all of a measly -0.09°C.
That type of impact would require U.S. emissions to drop by some 3 billion metric tonnes per year, which based on today's technology, would likely amount to at least an annual $1 trillion expense (assumes a ludicrously low $400 per tonne cost to immediately replace all the lost fossil fuel utilization, needed new infrastructure, replacement transportation vehicles and g*d knows what else to survive).
Whether its impact is viewed from a short-term or long-term perspective, the CO2 trace gas has had little, if any, influence on the atmosphere's temperatures...satellite measurements provide the proof that the CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis is not climate reality..... (follow up article is here)
(click on chart to enlarge)
It has been predicted by the climate "experts" that human CO2 emissions would cause the world's atmosphere to warm dangerously, producing catastrophic, world-ending climate disasters.
Some 30+ years later, the advanced satellites circling the globe, 24/7, provide the empirical evidence that the "expert" predictions were of no substance, nor merit.
The adjoining graph is a plot of short-term temperature changes since 1979, along with the cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. Specifically, the 6-month temperature changes show little, if any, impact from the continuous growth of the atmospheric trace gas, CO2. [Clarification: chart's temperature plot is a moving, full 6-month temperature difference calculated from global RSS monthly anomalies, currently 426 anomalies in dataset]
In fact, the overall trend (aqua line) of 6-month changes is actually negative - an indication that abrupt, accelerating dangerous global warming of the atmosphere is non-existent. [Clarification: Aqua line is a linear trend produced by Excel]
Now, that is the short-term. What about the long-term?
A recent study by a group of pro-catastrophic global warming scientists1 determined that the human CO2 warming influence on atmosphere temperatures would be obvious over 17-years of satellite measurements. These are the scientists who claim we have experienced catastrophic global warming, with world climate disasters being imminent.
And what has happened, over this long-term span specified by these scientists?
Over the last 204 months (that's 17 years through June 2014), the atmosphere temperatures have actually exhibited a global cooling trend, not warming. The per century trend is only a -0.36°C. Despite this small number, it still represents a cooling trend, opposite of consensus predictions.
Whether short or long-term, the state-of-the-art empirical satellite evidence is not only obvious, it is both climate and statistically significant: CO2 emissions have not had a significant influence (warming or cooling) on atmospheric temperatures.For objective science, this means that the CO2-centric anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is essentially invalidated, as it is currently understood.
(1) Study. Scientists involved: Ben D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, Tim M. L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, Tom R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, F. J. Wentz
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used (finally!...updated with RSS June 2014 Excel spreadsheet), including 6-month temperature changes and Excel linear trend in the above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Has modern human CO2 emissions caused unprecedented, irreversible and accelerating global warming? Convincingly not, per an analysis of UK's gold-standard climate research dataset...certainly, a very inconvenient climate 'FactCheck'.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Regarding claims of "irreversible" and "accelerating" global warming, the scientific empirical evidence (analysis of monthly measurements) comparisons is indisputable: over the last 15+ years, global warming has gone AWOL, which the climate "experts" are mystified about.
Ergo, modern global warming has been in a non-accelerating state, a status reversal taking place since the late 1990's.
Here and here, the scientific evidence from NOAA, when analyzed from a 5-year climate change viewpoint, clearly shows that both modern U.S. and world-wide warming are not "unprecedented" when compared to earlier 20th century periods.
Moving on to a different perspective, the adjacent chart documents that modern atmospheric CO2 levels growth was approximately 6 times greater than during that of the pre-1950 period.
Yet, this immense growth of modern emissions barely produced an uptick in 10-year global warming averages, when compared to a similar time span for the pre-1950s. This is the undeniable result of an analysis of the UK's HadCRUT4 global climate record dataset.
The difference between the two period's 10-year average increase was a trivial +0.1°C - that's well within the range of what natural climate variation could explain. If HadCRUT3 datapoints were used instead, the difference shrinks to +0.05°C.
These differences are meaningless; of no material, meaningful climate consequence; and, totally undeserving of the label "unprecedented."
Climate Change FactCheck Summation: Analyzing 1,853 datapoints of moving 10-year average global temperatures establishes there is no significant empirical evidence from the gold-standard HadCRUT4 climate records that would even suggest that modern-era warming deserves the "unprecedented" designation. Simply stated, scientists and politicians utilizing that adjective are intentionally being deceptive in order to solely advance a political agenda. Likewise, the deceptive use of the descriptors "accelerating" and "irreversible" are also not supported by any scientific evidence.
Additional information regarding the chart:
From a 10-year average global temperature low, established during November 1976, the modern warming period spanned 410 months, ending during December 2010 when the 10-year average peak occurred.
The pre-1950 (prior to the huge 'modern' consumer/industrial CO2 emissions) 10-year average temperature peaked during May 1945. Creating a similar 410-month span, establishes April 1912 as pre-1950 low point for this apple-to-apple comparison.
The atmospheric CO2 level (ppm) growth amounts depicted by the chart are based on these two 410-month periods.
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above infographic and 10-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Previously, using NOAA climate records, past U.S. warming (“global”) in the U.S. was compared to the modern U.S. warming...both warming periods were essentially the same despite the massive human CO2 emissions during the modern era…now an analysis of NOAA global temperatures reveals the same outcome…ah, those stubborn facts.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The gigantic consumer/industrial CO2 emissions during the modern era are claimed by “consensus” climate scientists to have caused rapid, accelerating, unprecedented dangerous warming, never experienced by humans before. But is this claim really true? Does climate reality support the catastrophic climate change hyperbole?
Nope. But you be the judge.
If CO2 emissions really matter, then their impact should be robustly apparent when analyzing long-term 5-year global climate warming averages. Simply stated, the differential impact from the gargantuan, modern CO2 emissions on global 5-year average warming should be significantly greater than pre-modern, natural warming for 5-year averages.
But that’s not the climate reality. Surprised?
As the adjacent graph of NOAA empirical evidence (5-year averages) reveals, the alarmists’ hyperbolic claims are without any scientific merit. The amount of modern warming (red dots) is nearly identical to the earlier 20th century warming (blue dots) that took place in the absence of large CO2 emissions.
In fact, the 381-month periods plotted in the graph have the earlier period warming to be just slightly higher (+0.01°C) than the modern warming.
To simplify, that’s totally contrary to what the UN’ IPCC and the major US and UK climate agencies have claimed and still widely promulgate.
For those more interested in the details of the chart’s plots, we move to a more complete description below…to the details!
Why was a 381-month (31.75 years) period chosen? Simple. Prior to 1950, the 5-year moving average of global temperatures peaked during October 1944. That peak was reached over a span of 381 months, from the starting trough low point of the 5-year average that occurred during February 1913. Voila, 381 months.
The modern 5-year average peak happened during January 2007. Working backwards to create a similar 381-month span, the start month for the modern period span is May 1975.
In order to produce a visual apple-to-apple comparison of the amount of warming for the two periods, the prior period’s 5-year averages were offset to start at the exactly same point as the modern warming period (‘offsetting’ the datapoints does not affect the slope of the earlier period’s warming trend, nor the amount of warming).
Although it is difficult to discern visually, as stated before, the earlier (pre-1950) 20th century warming actually was higher – a miniscule +0.01 degree higher, but still higher. That’s a freaking amazing outcome since all “experts” claim the modern era global warming was “unprecedented” and “unnatural.”
So what happens when the period span is changed to 300 months (25 years), using the same peak months as before (October 1944 and January 2007)?
It swings in favor of the modern span of warming – by incredibly the same amount of +0.01°C.
And if we used a 35-year comparison instead? OMG, modern warming just went berserk, clocking an unbelievable, higher modern warming of…wait for it…+0.07°C degree. (/sarc off)
And what if the comparison’s NOAA-benchmark was the trough-to-peak warming span of November 1976 to January 2007, a 363-month span (30.25 years)? Compared to a similar 363-month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06°C higher, which is smaller than the error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.
Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5-year average warming amounts, the modern era’s warming represents an increase not even one-tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming – it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.
What’s the essential point here?
Those stubborn facts: Well, the amount of trough-to-peak modern warming is almost identical to the amount of pre-1950 trough-to-peak warming, which is clear indication that the modern warming was likely due to the same natural influences, regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions.
Certainly, one can’t conclude that CO2 does not have some role during warming periods, but NOAA’s empirical science research indicates it is ‘best practice’ science to conclude that the vast majority of modern warming was a result of non-human reasons.
As wise old people would say: “it’s the same old, same old.”
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The political agenda of "global warming" is so important to government-sponsored scientists that massive fabrication of temperature warming is required to convince policymakers and the media.
The latest analysis (see graph) reveals the extent to which this temperature fabrication goes.
Although the actual climate records' empirical evidence shows essentially a flat temperature trend for the U.S. since 1985, NOAA has added warming "adjustments" to the historical empirical database to create a false warming trend of 1.5°F per century.
As this analysis indicates, consensus corruption of empirical science by U.S. scientists is active and robust, done with a seemingly obvious intent to deceive.
The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.
What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.
The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.
The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).
Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.
Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.
Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?
Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.
This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.
Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.
First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.
Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.
That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?
The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero.
Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)
Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).
What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?
Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.
Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?
On average, it's been estimated that a plastic bag weighs 32.5 grams (for the record, a typical grocery store plastic bag weighs only 5 grams). And its been estimated that a plastic bag at the average weight represents about 200 grams of CO2 (when accounting for the plastic bag's production and eventual incineration).
As a result, via simple multiplication, those 100 billion plastic bags equal 20 trillion grams of CO2, which converts to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2.
Sooo.....what's the plastic bag impact on global warming from 20 million tonnes/year of CO2 over the next 20 years?
Well, it's squat, too. There is no warming impact, which makes the Democrats' claim more anti-science propaganda of the quackery sort.
Banning plastic bags due to their climate change impact is sheer nonsense, but banning them for other environmental reasons is a whole 'nuther issue.
The global warming impact calculation can be accomplished with the 'C3' simple estimator found here and just enter the CO2 tonnes amount desired. (Note: The image above is only a replica of the real tool.)
For comparison purposes, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a global warming nothing-burger.
These smiling Democrat senators recently held a "climate change" sleepover at the Capitol that was a rather blatant attempt to please their billionaire-crony donors.
Instead of accomplishing anything meaningful, the low-watt Democrats justifiably received a heavy round of mockery from all sorts of Americans.
The Democrats' climate science has now been in quack mode for an extended period.
An example of the economic harm imposed by this type of anti-science quackery was a legislative victory for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate during 2007 when the "Energy Independence and Security Act" was passed. This 'Act' effectively banned the future purchase of incandescent light bulbs by Americans.
Since the beginning of 2014, those desired, cheap light bulbs have been difficult to find. And it's completely due to the quack anti-science that Democrats believe.
This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.
Thus, they have forced every American to buy more expensive lighting replacements instead of the old, reliably pleasing and inexpensive incandescent technology.
Democrats did this in the name of "science." But as was the case with their recent anti-science climate-pajama party, factual science was pretty much AWOL in the war on light bulbs.
So, what does the indisputable, factual science tell us about the global warming impact of keeping incandescent light bulbs out of the hands of Americans?
Simply put: It is squat - there is zero impact by doing so.
The science is actually pretty straightforward. First, Americans buy some 2 billion bulbs per year. Per the EPA, if each incandescent bulb purchased were replaced instead with an energy efficient CFL bulb purchase, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.0382 metric tonnes. So, two billion bulbs per year times 0.0382 tonnes totals to a yearly CO2 reduction of 76,400,000 tonnes.
Sounds impressive, no?
Well, in the scheme of things that are climate significant, it's not. As the real science dictates, by the end of the next 20 years the yearly CO2 reduction of 76 million plus tonnes will have zero impact on global temperatures. (And that's to the second decimal place.)
Let's do the math (or you can just use this 'C3' estimator whose replica is displayed below the Democrats' photo-op image): We know from the empirical evidence that since 1850 the Earth has warmed a +0.85 Celsius degree while humans have emitted approximately 1.4 trillion tonnes of CO2. As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01°C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.
How's that figure compare to the tonnes saved over 20 years by replacing 40 billion light bulbs? (BTW, it's highly likely there a lot fewer than 40 billion to be replaced.) All those incandescent light bulb CO2 savings would amount to only one-tenth the required 16+ billion tonnes.
And that then means all the CO2 savings would amount to no measurable global temperature impact. Hmmm...did we say 'squat' yet?
Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing-significant outcome for the climate.
That's a climate factcheck.
Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor-cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate-impact substance.
"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.
In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.
As this article describes, new scientific studies have recently been published, strongly indicating that both a long-term and short-term sensitivities are significantly lower than the failed assumptions of the IPCC.
The new research, depending on the time-frame chosen, indicates empirically-based climate sensitivity ranging from +1.0°C to +2.9°C.
Using the above 'C3' tool to estimate different global warming outcomes dependent of climate sensitivity chosen, it can be determined that if this century's climate sensitivity is closer to the '+1.5' the new studies suggest, then the global temperature impact would be a very modest +0.52°C - clearly, not the over-the-top +6 or more degree possibilities tossed about by many "consensus" scientists.
Note: To use the 'C3' global temperature estimator, click on the above image. Input your preferred variable data into the yellow boxes and press 'Enter' or 'Tab' key. Additional 'C3' tools.
An analysis of satellite temperature dataset, through February 2014, identifies only two 5-year periods having significant warming and five periods that exhibit either zero warming or cooling.....the consensus experts' predicted reaction, by the climate, to a surge of human CO2 emissions is not supported by empirical evidence
(click on chart to enlarge)
The adjacent chart clearly depicts the lack of the predicted global warming since the decade of the 1990s.
Utilizing a straight-forward, empirical analysis of the RSS satellite temperature dataset reveals a rather tenuous (non-existent?) relationship between global atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions.
As the chart suggests, a brief global warming spike has morphed into an extended global cooling phase, which the consensus experts have identified as 'the mysterious global-warming hiatus'; plus being forced to trot-out a wild variety of excuses as to why their AGW predictions have failed.
Unfortunately, the GWNs, and their compatriots in the green climate-doomsday-is-near cult, continue to reject the actual scientific empirical evidence, such as the above chart.
Download datasets used to calculate the five-year change (starting base month is February 1979) of RSS atmospheric temperatures; cumulative CO2 emission tonnes, from 1979 through 2013. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Another new study by climate "experts" produces even more speculation as to why the modern global warming 'Pause' has unexpectedly happened ... in the meantime, per NOAA.......
(click on chart to enlarge)
(click on chart to enlarge)
The never predicted 'Pause' has no equal as the chart on the left begins to suggest. This chart is a plot of total temperature anomaly differences (i.e. total monthly change, month by month) since February 1998 through December 2013.
NOAA's year-end 2013 published monthly temperature dataset has identified February 1998 as the highest temperature anomaly month ever. And as the chart indicates, for the subsequent 190 months, that 1998 peak was never topped, despite an average 29.5 billion new tons of CO2 emissions per year over that time span.
Since the modern era beginning with the 1950s, that 190-month stretch is the longest uninterrupted "pause" - simply, this is unprecedented since the era of vast consumer/industrial CO2 emissions commenced.
In contrast, the earlier 190-month period ending February 1998 experienced an almost continuous climb of higher and higher temperature changes, culminating in the early 1998 peak.
This steady climb was supposedly the sole result of the growth of new CO2 emissions (this periods emissions actually averaged some 30% less than the subsequent 190-month period ending in 2013).
Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate "experts," and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.
And like so many experts in so many other science fields, the IPCC climate wonks were wrong, spectacularly. It now stands at 190 months of prediction failure!
Surprised? If yes, review previous of 'those-stubborn-facts' charts here and here.
Note: How calculations were done: For the 190 months ending December 2013 (left chart), the February 1998 anomaly was the base point. The anomaly difference from this base was calculated for each subsequent month. No calculated difference during the 190 months was greater than -0.0001. Similar difference calculations were made for the 190-month period ending February 1998 (see rightmost chart), with that period's base point being April 1982.
Download NOAA 2013 year-end global monthly dataset used for difference calculations and plots (NOAA changes all historical data points for each new month's dataset, so 'C3' will retain this 2013 dataset for the near future). CO2 emission dataset can be downloaded here. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Proponents of the CAGW gloom and doom disaster scenarios often say that we need to "connect the dots" to understand how CO2 emissions are causing dangerous "accelerated" global warming.
Of course, these alarmists hope no one will actually "connect the dots," which is the almost guaranteed case for mainstream science journalists, TV pundits, politicians and Hollywood celebrities - those icons of mental laziness and politically correct thinking.
But what happens when one does actually connect-the-dots?
Well, the real world climate reality is then discovered: global warming has stalled and global cooling trends are appearing (see the UK and the US), confirmed by the scientific empirical evidence.
This adjacent chart for the global temperature trends (using the HC4 temperature dataset published by the UK's premier climate research agency) provides compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are not producing disastrous global warming trends.
As the chart reveals, today's per century trends are dominated by cooling for the different time periods; today's trends are multiple times below prior period, historical highs; the 5, 8 and 10-year trends are definitely below the average modern trend (1950 through 2013); and all the trends are significantly less than those reached 15 years ago (see black dotted lines for year-end 1998 trend levels).
As an aside, in the future, as the 15-year trend moves further and further from the persistent temperature impacts of 1997 and 1998, it too will likely become a negative trend.
None of today's trends even approach the IPCC's predicted trend range of 2 to 6 degrees (C) per century that its "experts" and climate models told us long ago were being experienced (unfortunately, they mistook the natural climate's super El Niño's huge impact during 1997/98 as confirmation of CO2-induced warming).
As readily apparent, because of natural climate feedback forces, yesterday's over-hyped accelerated warming (eg, 1998) can quickly reverse course, delivering robust deceleration and even global cooling.
And that's what one learns from the empirical climate science when the "dots" are truly connected.
More of that connect-the-dot style of climate science reality: modern global and regional temperature charts.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate moving 5-year, 8-year, 10-year and 15-year per century trends (ie, slopes), chart column bars and line curve. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over recent decades, there have been many false claims, misrepresentations and untruths regarding climate change and global warming.
Unfortunately, these deceptions are commonly void of any empirical merit, pernicious in nature and stubbornly deep-seated, often held dear by the world's establishment elites. Typical of false claims held dear include: global warming is "accelerating"; "runaway" global warming is at a "tipping point"; and that the greenhouse gas CO2 is a "control knob" or "thermostat" for Earth's climate.
With an air of authority and trust, agenda-driven, white-coat scientists can make these fictions sound entirely plausible, especially to the incredibly gullible establishment elites. However, these falsehoods rarely can survive even the simplest climate 'factchecks,' which apparently are beyond the intellectual capabilities of most elites.
Case in point, examine the accompanying chart carefully. (click on to enlarge)
Using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2, one can plot the per century warming/cooling trends on a monthly basis going back to 1850. Utilizing the easy-to-use plotting and calculation tools of Microsoft's Excel, it is simple to compare the empirical temperature trends of climate reality with the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
What do these empirical climate records actually reveal?
===> That acceleration of cooling and warming happen with great frequency, then always followed with an inevitable deceleration - "accelerating" warming (nor cooling) persists
===> That the different period cooling/warming trends exist in narrow to wider bands over the total instrumental temperature record
===> That the 10-year trends (cyan) have a narrower ban than the 5-year trends (purple); the 5-year trends have a narrower band than the 3-year trends (green); the 3-year trends have a narrower band than the 2-year trends (blue); and finally, the 2-year trends have a narrower band than the 12-month (one year, red) band
===> The 1-year trends (moving 12-month) reach the greatest extremes, with excesses coming close to either a cooling trend of minus 80 degrees per century or a plus 80 degrees warming trend per century - amazingly, within a few years of each other
===> The greatest warming (acceleration) trends ever recorded took place during the 1870s; the largest cooling trends occurred during the late 1870s and early 1880s.
===> The highest 10-year warming trend (briefly at 4.14°C/century) happened in 1983, well in advance of the highest CO2 atmospheric levels achieved during the 1990s and the 2000s
===> The 2013 year-end per century trends (note the color arrows on chart's right axis) are well below previous warming trends
===> Although the 1-year moving trends in the distant past have approached both extremely high and cold temperature rates, the natural climate reactions then produced reversing course corrections (i.e. nature responds to extremes by avoiding long-term "runaway" and "tipping point" conditions)
===> The future climate will continiue to exhibit high natural acceleration and deceleration for both cooling and warming, guaranteed
===> The continuous growth of cumulative CO2 emissions over the entire span since 1850 has likely zero correlation with the constant acceleration/deceleration of natural climate temperature trends - CO2's impact on the trends is demonstrably minimal
===> The immense increase of CO2 levels (110ppm) since 1850 has not produced any trend peak, nor trough, during the post-WWII era that could be even remotely construed as "unprecedented" or "runaway" or a "tipping point" condition (with the possible exception being the 1-year cooling trend trough reached during the 1970s)
===> Simply put (which is blatantly obvious from the empirical evidence), human CO2 emissions or total CO2 atmospheric levels are not the "control knob"/"thermostat" that the white-coat, agenda-driven scientists say they can manipulate to manage the globe's temperatures.
Prior to the immense post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, the world was warming, which peaked in the year 1944 (see chart).
The total pre-modern temperature increase to an identified peak (Sept. 1944) was +0.55°C, using the 12-month mean for year 1850 as the starting point.
Since the end of 1944 though, the modern era warming only added another +0.40°C on top of the 1944 peak, based on the high point for the rolling 12-month average, which was reached in mid-1998 (Aug. 1998).
With all the doom and gloom of global warming alarmism, this unexpected truth of modern global warming being less than the pre-modern era is an indicator that man-made catastrophe is not just around the corner. And this good news comes to us from the IPCC's own gold-standard for temperature observations - the UK's HadCRUT4 global dataset.
Also, the above chart of the 12-month means clearly shows a climate that moves from cooling to warming phases, and then back - a natural oscillation that 'catastrophic global warming' skeptics have long discussed, while being dismissed by the IPCC and its cohorts.
Keeping the observed oscillation in mind, the last significant warming ended with a peak in 1998 (the peak during 2010 was a very close second) and temperatures have since paused. Recently, this natural climate oscillation has been identified (by none other than the premier science journal Nature) as a potential cause of the 'Pause' that is generating such befuddlement for the "consensus" climate experts.
Not only has there been a very noticeable pause, since late 2001 there has been an actual cooling of global temperatures, which is noted on the chart with a light blue text box. As for the 12-month 2013 mean, it represents a slight temperature drop of -0.09°C since the 1998 peak (another case of those-stubborn-facts).
Understand, this chart does not explain the amount of any given warming/cooling that is due to either nature or humans, respectively. Nor does it tell us how long the 'Pause' will last or which direction temperatures will take after the stall. Some experts say temperatures will surely fall, while others claim that warming is hiding in the ocean deeps just waiting to climb out - your choice as to which view is correct.
The chart does suggest however that unpredictable temperature movements and climate change will happen regardless of CO2 levels and any human actions.
Finally, many CAGW alarmists predict that global temperatures will jump some 6 degrees by year 2100AD with a doubling of CO2. This chart's axes have been set to provide that context. Per the empirical history since 1850 and the recent global cooling, the 2100AD temp is much more likely to reflect the established +0.47°C per century trend...one thinks.
For those sharp-eyed readers, the chart title has slightly different temperature increase numbers than this article's text. The chart increases are based on the year-end that the peak temperatures took place; the increases used in the text are based on the actual month/year the 12-month mean peak happened.
Note: Excel was used to calculate the 12-month rolling means and plot the data. Used the HadCRUT4 dataset; the post-1958 CO2 dataset; and the pre-1958 CO2 dataset (divided annual ppm levels by 12). Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Other IPCC consensus "experts" are wildly throwing around a hodgepodge of reasons that at last count was up to eight. Take your pick.
One reason definitely not on the table for discussion by climate reality deniers resisters is the obvious one: increasing CO2 levels are having little impact on global temperatures, which means that nature's normal climate forces overwhelm any CO2 influence. For the consensus scientists to open this can-of-worms would be the death knell of the AGW hypothesis - scientists driven by greed and the limelight do not willingly eviscerate the golden ox that has produced multi-billions for research grants and scientific studies.
Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.
This obvious climate reality is portrayed in the above chart. Literally, 3-year changes in CO2 levels have no correlation with 3-year changes in global temperatures for the IPCC's modern era, starting with 1950. Simply put, one does not have to be a rocket scientist, nor a climate scientist, to ascertain that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is severely dysfunctional.
Eventually, global warming phase will return, as it always has in the past, but the climate models' prediction outcomes (and credibility) will likely be even worse, if that is even possible.
Poll after poll clearly indicates that Americans do not believe the Obama administration's anti-science claims (bogus?) regarding climate change and global warming.
Most Americans understand the day-to-day climate reality, thus they handily reject the climate hysteria and gutter-smears that both Obama and John Kerry feel compelled to utter.
As this accompanying chart reveals, global temperature change has decelerated and is now in negative (ie, global cooling) territory - the pink dot denotes current climate reality during the Obama administration.
This empirical evidence from the UK's climate research agency is the gold-standard, utilized by the UN's IPCC.
The red curve is a plot of 5-year "acceleration" (or lack thereof) presented as 5-year per century trend data-points (based on 60-month linear trends calculated for each month since 1850). The black plot represents a simple 10-year moving average of the 60-month data-points.
Why 5 years? Reality: The Obama administration has occupied the White House for the last 5 years.
What does the chart establish? Reality: Since a peak of warming "acceleration" during the second Bush administration, the short-term global warming trend has collapsed during Obama's term. Indeed, short-term global cooling is the current scientific fact.
How does the current short-term trend compare to previous administrations? Reality: During the modern era since 1950, Democrat administrations under Carter and Clinton reached the greatest warming accelerations (respectively, a 7.8°C/century trend during 1980 and a 8.4°C/century during 1998).
For comparisons sake, those 5-year acceleration peaks exceeding 5.0°C/century have been labeled on the chart with their respective White House occupants. And note, the greatest global warming short-term accelerations took place prior to 1950, plus being prior to the large influx of post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
When should a future president and the public become concerned about global warming caused climate change? Reality: When warming finally exceeds the unprecedented per century trend rate (11.5°C) previously reached during the Rutherford Hayes administration (1877-1881), for an extended period (say, 2 years as a minimum).
Again, the pink dot on the chart tells the climate science reality: Per the empirical evidence, the recent White House anti-science climate change comments are blatantly false, without any scientific merit, and are deserving of multiple Pinocchio badges.
More climate science reality: Those modern global and regional temperature charts that don't lie.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate 5-year slopes, 10-year averages and plots. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how. Source of Pinocchio image.
And now NOAA has just released their U.S. dataset update, which reveals that U.S. winters (November, December, January), over the last 20 years, have cooled at a -2.5°F per century rate. The adjacent NOAA/NCDC web site chart depicts that cooling trend.
As this NOAA dataset suggests, the reason for worse winter weather in the U.S. is likely a cooling climate change that has followed the previous modern warming - a natural climate response.
Again, 'those-stubborn-facts' that are so inconvenient for politicians.
Most everyone (99.9%?) involved in the climate science community are fully aware of NASA's gross manipulation "enhancement" of the historical global temperature record dataset.
It's understood by all that the real 20th century warming was just not very dramatic, thus it had to be 'sexed up' to fit the alarmist fear-mongering. As a result, the NASA/GISS climate agency has shown their amazing "scientific" capabilities by producing an enhanced global warming trend.....by simply, and literally, lowering (ie, cooling) past recorded temperatures prior to 1960.
This chart clearly reveals these NASA's manipulation "enhancement" results, which are laughable, unless of course, one is unaware of the back story of manipulated "enhancing" climate science.
NASA's has done a yeoman's job keeping the U.S. mainstream press from discussing the faux global warming trend but international news agencies have less qualms about reporting the truth.
This chart comes from an international newscast regarding the fake global warming. The newscast about the chart and the political agenda behind it can be watched by clicking on the graph. Or read about it here.
The empirical evidence is indisputable and unequivocal.
The continental U.S. has been cooling (-6.5°F/century rate) over the last 15 years, per NOAA. This can no longer be denied by the scientific community and the politicians fanatically pushing the anti-science claim that dangerous and rapid global warming is taking place, due to human CO2 emissions.
This chart plots the most recent monthly U.S. temperatures through January 2014, including the simple 36-month moving average of CO2 atmospheric levels over the last 180 months.
While "global warming" activists/proponents focus on superficial, short-term cherry-picks of the "hottest ________" (just fill in the blank with 'day', 'week', 'month', 'quarter', 'year', etc. to mimic a typical fanatic's cherry-picking spiel), those stubborn climate facts, which are critical, remain simple: the entire globe has experienced a long warming 'pause' and America's climate has been on a cooling trend over that same time span.
Scientists are unable to explain this 'standstill' using the "consensus" AGW hypothesis, and any discussions of the 'inconvenient' U.S. cooling trend are entirely avoided by politicians, climate agency scientists/bureaucrats and other warming advocates.
The observed current U.S. cooling trend is not a prediction, but it does indicate that the continental landmass is affected by powerful, non-CO2 greenhouse gas factors that may continue for the near future.
Note: Chart's linear trend is calculated using monthly absolute temperature values. If using anomalies instead, based on monthly averages from 1901 to 2000 base period, the per century cooling trend is -2.4°F.
Datasets used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over the last 30 years, the globe has warmed, which no scientist denies.
Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not "unprecedented."
Per NOAA, prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.
This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time (scroll down to the 1940s on this page to learn more about previous global warming).
As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.
And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).
The climate 'FactCheck' summary: the world's climate has experienced a declining ocean warming rate since the 1940s, which contradicts the "consensus" anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, per NOAA. Just another case of those-stubborn-facts ... modern ocean warming is not unprecedented.
Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.
The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.
As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don't even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart - an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)
The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious - how was the IPCC so wrong?
And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC's climate science orthodoxy.
IPCC scientists assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, remaining anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.
This assumption is a cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis. The cumulative CO2 growth causes global warming that accelerates (they hypothesize) to a condition of "runaway" temperature increases via positive feedbacks, leading to catastrophic "tipping point" climate change.
To simplify, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and climate models, assume that every additional emission molecule of atmospheric CO2 will accelerate the global warming, to the point of no return. Thus, each new tonne (metric) of CO2 will boost the acceleration via a theoretical positive feedback amplification.
But does the empirical evidence actually indicate that is indeed what is taking place?
Using a combination of the NOAA annual global temperature dataset and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.
This article's chart provides the answer. As can be observed, each new CO2 emission molecule added to the climate has a smaller and small impact, the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. In 1941, the degree increase per tonne hit a peak. Since then, the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne.
The AGW hypothesis does not account for this ever smaller impact of CO2. Possibly this is the reason for the "consensus" unexpected global warming 'hiatus', which the IPCC scientists are still at a loss to explain.
If this tiny impact stays constant over the next 30 years, and the growth rate of CO2 emissions over the last 15 years remains the same for the next 30 years (another trillion tonnes emitted), the potential increase of global temperatures will barely be +0.2°C (two-tenths of a degree) by year 2044. And if each tonne's impact continues to shrink, as the evidence suggests, so will the temperature increase shrink.
Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions. As the Nature science journal indicates, currently, and for the near future, a natural PDO cooling phase may dominate.
More on the above 'C3' chart. Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880).
The ratio allows for depicting visually the influence of all those previous CO2 emissions on moving 30-year climate periods. The chart's additional green and light blue curves simply provide a smoothed sense of direction of the fossil fuel emission influence.
Summary: The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis. Per the well known and documented CO2 physics, this outcome should not be a surprise. It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' in science.
Per the IPCC's gold-standard of global temperature measurements, since the late 1800s, the highest per century warming trend achieved occurred during the 42-year period ending in 1949.
Simply stated, that is when the actual "unprecedented" global warming acceleration was witnessed.
The accompanying graph establishes this as fact, when put in the IPCC context that modern global warming started with the year 1950. This is the decade of the modern era that the newest IPCC report asserts when human CO2-induced climate change began. (See the red circle? More on that fact in a bit.)
Depending on which IPCC spokesperson's claim is to be believed, since 1950 the "accelerating" global warming is not only unprecedented, it's "rapid", "dangerous", "irrefutable", "indisputable", "undeniable", "incontrovertible" and, of course, "irreversible".
However, the empirical evidence does not support any of these claims.
First, the adjacent chart's essentials. The modern period of 1950 to 2013 is 64 years long, which the IPCC characterizes as being dominated by human CO2 emissions with little natural climate influence. The chart's orange curve represents this modern period.
The chart's green plot represents the 64 years ending in 1949 (from 1886 to 1949), the year designated by the IPCC as the end of natural climate change's dominant impacts. Okay, now note the red circle and red dashed line that intersects the green curve: that's when unprecedented warming took place.
Adding some more context, each of the two 64-year periods had human CO2 emissions. For the modern period since 1950, an approximate 1.2 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions were released, while the earlier period had some 200 billion tonnes - that's a 6x difference.
Yet, as this charts reveals, the per century warming trends are remarkably similar with the fastest warming acceleration happening in the earlier period. This overall similarity takes place despite the incredible increase of human CO2 emissions after 1949.
Indeed, there are amazing similarities between the two periods but they do have differences. There is a significant divergence of trends at the 24-year mark where the modern warming trend starts to decline while the pre-1950 trend continues to increase for another 7 years. In addition, at the 11-year mark, the modern temperature trend does an abrupt reversal from negative (i.e. cooling trend) to warming for the next 4 years, then it reverses again until it also reaches a cooling trend for the 5-year mark ending 2013.
Ultimately, what is the overall impact of CO2 emissions on modern climate change when using the IPCC's year 1950 start? Over the 64 years ending in 2013, the global warming trend was +0.74°C per century. In contrast, the per century trend was +0.65°C for the earlier 64-year period ending 1949.
That's correct, all that separates these two extended periods of global warming is likely an unmeasurable +0.09°C - nine hundredths of a single degree.
The UK's HadCRUT4 global empirical evidence makes it very clear: modern acceleration of warming temperatures is not unprecedented, nor unusual due to CO2 emissions; nor does the modern period exhibit any warming trend that comes close to even 1.5°C per century. In summary, it is highly probable that any modern warming was just a continuation of rebound warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, natural climate change still rules.
Synopsis: The unprecedented, long-term climate change and global warming actually took place over 40 years ago.
One of the reasons that the UK's HadCRUT global temperature series is considered the 'gold-standard' is its reaching back to year 1850 - a year that is considered near the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
This dataset's superior length allows analysis of long-term climate change since the LIA, including the widely accepted 60-year cycle of global temperatures.
The adjacent chart plots 60-year global temperature changes and cumulative atmospheric CO2 level changes since 1850, using the annual HadCRUT4 dataset.
From this chart, the following can be discerned:
===>Long-term climate change (60-years), as evidenced by temperature change, has been increasing as the globe has rebounded from the depths of the Little Ice Age
===>Long-term warming started well in advance of huge modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions of post-WWII.
===>Unprecedented warming ended with the 60-year peak around 1969 and subsequent long-term warming has returned to very modest levels.
===>Claimed "accelerating" temperature warming does not exist in the more recent long-term record - however, there are 60-year periods of cooling and warming spurts that are the likely result of natural cycles.
===>Both the chart's fitted trend and 10-year average curve (cyan and dark blue, respectively), reveal a temperature change direction that is vastly different (i.e. opposite) of the trend exhibited by the growing cumulative CO2 ppm levels.
===>The hypothesized AGW positive feedback, which supposedly leads to accelerating temperature increases and long-term, "tipping point" climate change, is without any empirical evidence merit
===>Prior to 1970, HadCRUT4 documents four exceptional 60-year warming peaks that are equal or larger than either the modern era's 1998 and 2010 peak.
===>The chart depicts long-term climate change (per changes in temperatures) that is constant, never ending - at times dramatic, and other periods, exhibiting more subtle changes
In summary, the immense growth of cumulative CO2 levels over the last 40+ years has had minimal long-term impact on global temperature change. Recent temperature changes are more likely the result of a combination of the remaining natural warming rebound from the LIA end and natural cycles, which produced those large 60-year temperature increases prior to 1970.
Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, "consensus" climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling "experts" at NASA.
This chart depicts the famous global warming predictions made by NASA's chief climate scientist in 1988 at a hearing before the U.S. Senate.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.
Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.
Yet, despite the NASA "expertise" and the gigantic growth of human CO2 emissions, actual global temperatures over the past 25 years have closely matched Hansen's 'Scenario C', which he predicted would take place if CO2 emissions had been limited to year 2000 levels.....didn't happen.
Unexpectedly (i.e. not predicted), global temperatures flat-lined and CO2 emissions continued on their merry, amazing growth path, unabated.
Regarding climate reality, the lack of global warming was not a prediction that climate models were programmed to produce. The models do not rely on natural climate change or natural climate warming and cooling attributes. It is not in the models' software "DNA" because human climate experts really don't understand the chaotic nature of Earth's climate, nor comprehend the true power of nature.
The experts are befuddled and recognize that they are without a rational reason for the global warming pause, other than the obvious: natural climate change.
If the current 17-year trend continues, the oceans would warm by an almost unmeasurable one-tenth of a degree Celsius by year 2100. (The 17-year period is 204 months, starting with January 1, 1997 - that is before the super El Nino phenomenon of 1997-1998)
The adjacent charts (courtesy of ocean expert Bob Tisdale) plot the temperature changes for each major ocean basin since late 1981.
The red vertical line on each chart denotes the date of January 1997. The trend data in the corner of each chart assumes the trend from 1997 will continue to year 2100 (warming: trends are not predictions).
From these individual charts, we learn that the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern isn't; it's warming for all the Atlantic basins yet cooling for all the Pacific basins.
Clearly, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and its associated climate models, provide no explanation for this mishmash. It's hard enough for the "experts" to even explain why the Arctic basin warming took off in recent years, while the Southern Ocean basin did the exact opposite, let alone trying to make sense of this global 'mishmash' using the rather lame construct of CO2 greenhouse gas causation.
Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.
Note: Bob Tisdale used NOAA's Nomad web site to create the charts. The Nomad ocean dataset is the highest resolution climate record available but it only goes back to 1981. Bob Tisdale article the charts pulled from.
NASA's climate research arm, GISS, recently updated its global temperature dataset.
Using the annual temperature anomaly data from GISS, in combination with annual CO2 data from NOAA, the temperature increase per atmospheric CO2 ppm increase can be calculated.
Now, if global warming is solely a function of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, then calculating the degree increase per ppm added would be a convenient measure to monitor.
As this chart reveals, for the 50-year period ending 1963, for each ppm increase of CO2 there was an associated increase of +0.024°C; in contrast, for the 50-year period ending 2013, the impact on warming was 67% less per ppm.
This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics - the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. Essentially, from lab testing it was determined that increasing levels of CO2 caused a diminishing returns effect, which is better described here.
The logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was first presented way back in the 1930s by a scientist named Guy Callendar, and it is now widely accepted as science fact.
And as the entire world knows by now, global warming is stuck in 'The Hiatus' that has resulted in temperatures barely budging over the last 16 years. This is despite the prodigious amounts of new CO2 emissions over that time span - recall, as the chart indicates, the influence of CO2 has declined.
What this means is that future CO2 emission impacts will likely continue to lessen, to the point where they become rather inconsequential, which the climate may already be approaching in a manner faster than expected.
Certainly, it would seem this fellow Callendar was really onto something. Plus, he discounted the speculative idea that higher levels of CO2 would create a positive feedback supposedly leading to ever higher temps. It appears he was wise to dismiss the shaky concept of "tipping point" positive feedbacks.
Not bad for a scientist without the "benefits" of super-computers, satellites, IPCC conferences, huge government funding of climate research and etc.
There is an enduring myth that global temperatures are accelerating, produced by ever greater amounts of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. The myth is popularized by anti-science propagandists, who are either driven by political agendas or irrational fears.
The myth facilitators actually claim that the world is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. This ludicrous claim is completely counter to all known empirical, scientific evidence.
At least 97% of climate scientists would not make this claim, since it is well established that global temps have stalled for 16+ years, and even the most pro-AGW scientists are now admitting that the lack of warming is likely due to natural forces.
The enduring myth of "accelerating" is a leftover from earlier IPCC climate reports and the original AGW hypothesis that speculated greater levels of atmospheric CO2 would generate "runaway" global warming leading to a catastrophic "tipping point" climate change. That's how 'AGW' turned into 'CAGW'.
Well, neither has happened, which the indisputable and unequivocal evidence is clear about.
The above chart plots the changing 3-year linear trend slopes using monthly observations going back to 1850 (this is the HadCRUT4 dataset from the UK climate research agency - it is the only global dataset going back that far).
The plot clearly shows that temperatures will achieve short-term accelerations, both cooling and warming. The evidence also shows that any acceleration is a temporary phenomenon that then is reversed. The greatest period of accelerating warming took place during the late 1870s when a short-lived +23.4°C per century pace was reached.
The greatest acceleration for the modern era was reached in 1998 (+17.5°C per century rate), some 6 degrees below the earlier record a 100+ years before. The 1998 peak was a direct result of natural climate forces, the super El Nino of 1997-1998.
The chart also includes a 3-year average plot of atmospheric CO2 levels, which reflects a never-ceasing growth (exception being WWII years).
Obviously, to the eye, the level of CO2 has no relationship with "accelerating" cooling or warming. The statistical correlation between CO2 and acceleration level is barely above zero - an indicator that the agenda-driven myth has absolutely no empirical legs, so-to-speak.
Finally, the chart has a 120-period (10-year) average of the 3-year per century trends of acceleration/deceleration. This dark curve has a black circle around the 2013 endpoint. Simply put, accelerating, rapid warming is not happening presently (but rest assured, it will happen in the future, just like it has in the past - and that's what natural climate change does, no human CO2 required).
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.
As the climate science experts and the empirical climate record datasets confirm, there has been no global 'climate-significant' warming since 1998.
Then there is the question of 'statistically-significant' warming - has it happened?
When this subject is discussed by individuals, it's not always clear what they mean. For this article, a statistically-significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95% statistical confidence (i.e. the 95% error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).
Or, using a very simplified example, a calculated (estimated) linear global warming trend, of say 1.50°C/century, is not statistically-significant if the error bars are at ±1.55°C. If the 1.55 error is subtracted from the 1.50 linear trend, an actual possible trend could potentially be negative, not positive, nor even zero.
For more about statistically-significant global warming, there is an expert discussion here. Using the 2013 year-end major temperature datasets listed in that expert discussion, the above grid table (click on to enlarge) represents the lack of statistically-significant warming for each dataset. (When reading the WUWT article, remember that a statistically-significant warming trend does not necessarily mean that it is a climate-significant trend.)
In summary, the table depicts (for those listed climate records) the lack of statistically-significant warming since mid-1997. That's 16+ years. For two of the datasets, it's now up to at least 20 years without a statistically-significant global warming trend.
So, what's that gotta do with '4 Hiroshima bombs per second', you ask?
Well.....the CAGW dead-enders would like everyone to forget about the actual empirical evidence and statistical facts, and instead, focus on the concept that possibly global warming is adding some 4 Hiroshima bombs of energy per second. They imply that this added energy rains down untold destruction from pole-to-pole.....a classic recent example of this hyperbole is described by this journalist.
Amazingly, the dead-enders conveniently forget to mention the science facts, such as the Sun blasts Earth with energy that is equivalent to 1,950 Hiroshima bombs....per second. When one does the arithmetic (86,400 seconds per day times 1,950 H-bombs/second), that's approximately 169 million Hiroshima bombs of natural warming per day.
Thus, when putting hyperbole into factual context, it helps explain why anthropogenic warming might not be making any statistically-significant impression on nature. And, obviously, the over-the-top hyperbole has made little impression on Americans; not so much on Europeans either.
World Extreme Temperature Map (click on to enlarge)
For several decades now, consensus climate experts predicted that human CO2 emissions would produce extreme climate change for the world, which would be an existential threat to civilization.
Experts spoke of boiling oceans and Venus-like atmospheres caused by humans use of fossil fuels. At the heart of these soon-to-be catastrophic climate disasters was runaway and tipping point warming - hotter and hotter temperatures that kept ratcheting up.
It didn't happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.