Article: NASA temperature records for Antarctica peninsula show no real warming since the late 1980s - a 'pause' that predates the global one, despite record levels of atmospheric CO2.
Article: NASA temperature records for Antarctica peninsula show no real warming since the late 1980s - a 'pause' that predates the global one, despite record levels of atmospheric CO2.
This peer-reviewed study confirms that extreme warming took place in China, at the approximate times that Europe was experiencing the warming of the Medieval and Minoan periods.
Unprecedented global warming over a vast swath of the world took place in antiquity.
It is accurate to conclude that natural climate change is a powerful force in terms of promoting significant temperature change regimes - simply, human CO2 emissions are not required to do so.
"Using multi-proxy records -- including data on pollen, charcoal, phytoliths, total nitrogen, total organic carbon and loss-on-ignition from a 268-cm-long sediment core...The six scientists report that one of what they call the "significant climate events during this period" was the Medieval Warm Period, which held sway from approximately AD 700-1200, and which they say "was also revealed at some other sites in Xinjiang,...which was about 1.3°C higher than what had been the case at any other time over the past 3,000 years"
Additional peer-reviewed studies.
Using the updated HC4 global anomalies dataset, since 1955 the global temperature trend for intermediate and long-term periods has never exceeded 1.8 degrees per century, let alone the fabled 2.0° mark, as of calculations based on the March 31, 2015 date.
As the adjacent graph reveals, the latest 10 year trend since 2005 has dropped to a barely measurable 0.4°/century and the last 18 years (since 1997) is an eyelash higher at 0.67°/century - and by the way, both of these figures are essentially climate-impact insignificant.
Why 1997? Well...there has been very little warming since 1997. What warming there has been is robustly below what "expert" climate models projected. Climate scientists typically refer to this unexpected deceleration as the 'hiatus' or 'pause'.
Per the chart of empirical evidence, the deceleration of global warming is evident from the fitted trend curve.
Sticking with that last 18-year trend as of March 2015, how does the most recent period stack up versus other 18-year periods when the entire HC4 dataset from 1850 is analyzed?
Since 1850, there has been 1,983 months of reported temperatures. From those, 1,768 18-year trend datapoints can be calculated.
The March 2015 18-year trend datapoint ranks number #875 - so, approximately half of the past datapoints possess a higher 18-year trend.
Yet atmospheric CO2 growth since 1964, as represented by the green circles on the graph, has been non-stoppable, blowing well past the hypothetical "safe" 350ppm level to reach the highest modern CO2 level ever.
This combination of temperature acceleration datapoints and CO2 measurements clearly demonstrates that CAGW accelerated warming does not exist; and it is unequivocally, irrefutably, undeniably and non-debatable that the world is experiencing a rather tepid, 'luke-warming' environment.
Historically, today's temperature trends are entirely within in the realm of what has taken place in the past from natural temperature variation, regardless of CO2 levels.
In other words, it is indisputable that the current climate does not suffer from "dangerous" man-made warming.
One could say that this infallible empiricism defines the non-religious, scientific climate change reality, so-to-speak.
Notes: Interpreting the above chart's blue columns: for example, since 1984 (see yellow box) the last 31 years (see corresponding blue column X-axis label) the warming trend was 1.73C/century, as of the 31-year period ending March 2015. The green circles are simple calendar year atmospheric CO2 measurements - the first (leftmost) circle represents 1964 and the last green circle is 2014. All blue columns representing temperature trends use at least 100 months of temperature measurements for the trend calculations (using less than 100 can produce extreme volatility for calculated trends - the less than 100 datapoint calculations are very interesting but can be quite misleading). Excel was used to calculate the different period trends (using Excel's slope function); Excel's charting function was used to plot the trend datapoints. Those stubborn facts: source of UK MetOffice H4 dataset; source of atmospheric annual CO2 levels.
As the U.S. East Coast continues to dig out from another major blizzard, it is a reminder that natural climate forces and patterns have eviscerated the predictions made by by government climate "experts." Their predictions of warmer winters and less snow have not only been incorrect, they have been flat-out spectacularly wrong.
While ignorance is bliss for many, it is still is no excuse for the elites of politics and media to continue to spread falsehoods about CO2 causing warming winters.
As the above NOAA graphs clearly document, the strong cooling trend for the winter months of December (19 years), January (21 years) and February (20 years) across the U.S. northeast is indisputable.
Let's be clear about this: there is no identifiable group of climate-doomsday experts within government-funded circles who predicted twenty years ago that CO2 would cause this cooling trend outcome.
And precipitation trends over the same time periods in the Northeast? Well, depending on the month, take your pick, up or down. For any given winter month, one year of cold temperatures could produce a wet or a dry month.
It would appear that winter weather is not that predictable from year to year; and obviously, nor are climate conditions some 10, 20 30 or 50 years into the future.
Those who have relied on the CO2-induced AGW climate hypothesis have continuously been proven wrong. Yet, the CO2 cult faithful still hold climate doomsday predictions as gospel, regardless of the empirical science.
How much global warming (or cooling) will take place by 2050AD?
The flat-out, scientific truth is that nobody really knows. Not the IPCC. Not the climate models. Not the experts. And certainly not the green crony-facilitators, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben (fyi...crony Al Gore just loves them to death.)
This chart plotting the IPCC's gold-standard (HC4) of global temperature trends, of past and present, reveals why it is so incredibly difficult to predict climate change, be it of short or long-term nature. Climate change is constantly happening - going from one warming acceleration to the next cooling acceleration extreme, rather rapidly.
And note, this takes place regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels (see black curve), and associated human CO2 emissions. Clearly, the skyrocketing CO2 levels since the 1950's are not responsible for such wide variance in temperature trends, since they can even be observed a century before.
In fact, based on a visual inspection, one could surmise that climate change extreme trends have lessened since the modern increase of CO2 levels.
As can be seen, shorter cooling/warming trends have been highly variable from the very start of recording instrumentally-measured "global" temperatures. The light red (12-mth) and green (60-mth) plots readily show this.
So, when did the greatest acceleration of warming trends take place? Amazingly, all the warming spikes that matched or equaled ±20°C took place (see yellow-tinted boxes) prior to the last 40 years of massive human CO2 emissions.
Regarding the 10, 20 and 30-year climate change variability, there is no question that the wild and natural extremes of the short-term always return to a rather mundane long-term variability. The dark blue, cyan and bright red plots indicate long-term climate change that is...well...pretty mundane.
Compared to a 12-month climate change extreme trend of +25.0°C reached in 1878, the 30-year trend extreme only reached a maximum of +0.72°C (during 2003) and has now been reduced to a August 2014 30-year trend of 0.61°C - and relative to the 1940's, that's a trend only eight-hundredths of a degree greater.
Conclusion: Climate change never stops. Whether short-term or long-term, global temperature trends constantly accelerate/decelerate. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this extreme variability - it is a natural phenomenon that is chaotic, totally unpredictable and unstoppable. The climate change indicated by today's temperature trends is insignificantly different than the past climate change. And those are the stubborn facts.
Note: Linear temperature trends do not represent predictions (any trend today can be drastically different in the future). Excel's slope function was used to calculate the moving trends for each time span (by month) and to plot them. To calculate the trends by 2050AD, the derived slope for each month and each time-span trend was multiplied by 424 months (after August 2014, there are only 424 full months until January 1, 2050AD). HadCRUT4 global dataset and CO2 (ppm) datasets used for chart can be found here.
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.
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?
Previously, we analyzed the claim by Democrats that global warming was being caused by American light bulbs.
As shown here, that claim is found to be without any empirical merit - essentially, pure anti-science rhetoric on the part of Democrats.
Next we take a look at the Democrats' claim that plastic bags are a major cause of global warming.
For many Democrats, the banning of plastic bags in their local communities has become a personal cause célèbre that represents a badge of honor in the fight against global warming.
But does the plastic bag "cause" have any scientific merit or is just more anti-science from quacks?
To the math. In the U.S. some 100 billion plastic bags are used each year. Yikes!
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.
Read about the 'C3' simple estimators.
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.
Additional 'C3' estimator/calculation tools.
The IPCC's old "consensus' has proclaimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would likely result in global temperatures increasing from 3.5 to 6+ degrees Celsius.
The last 15 years of actual climate records and empirical measurements have shattered that consensus. Publication after publication has written about the "Pause" or the "Hiatus" that's been used to describe AWOL global warming.
"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.
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!
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.
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.
Update: Chart has been updated with correct values. Reader Ken identified an error for each bar in chart - each 60-year temperature change value was underreported by 0.1 degree.
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.
Additional temperature and climate charts.
Update: Chart's legend previously reversed, now corrected. Thanks to reader Les.
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.
Note: Reminder, trends are not predictions. Download datasets used to calculate 60-year changes, trends and etc. using Excel. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Recently, the climate change myth that global warming is "accelerating" has been shattered by the near-zilch warming for the last 17 years - indeed, to the point where even climate change alarmist scientists are being forced to admit that 'the pause' remains unexplained.
Another climate myth that can no longer weather the empirical storm is that human CO2 emissions have created an "unprecedented" global warming change regime. Of course, this myth completely melts when contrasted to previous climate warmings during ancient and historical periods.
Yet, it is still a widely accepted myth for periods since 1980 - that human CO2 has caused unprecedented temperature increases, far outpacing any previous 20th century warming increases. That is not true, though, per the NOAA empirical evidence of the climate record.
The above chart depicts the last 100 years of global warming increases, segmented by two 50-year periods, which handily exposes the lameness of the myth.
The column on the left shows the cumulative NOAA temperature change over 50 years, starting in 1914, including the atmospheric change in CO2 levels (black vertical bar) over that same 50 years. The column on the right represents the same information, but instead for the 50-year period starting in 1964.
One does not have to be a climate "rocket" scientist to recognize that the earlier 20th century warming increase was greater than the modern warming. And it is painfully clear, even to proponents of this myth, that the earlier warming increase took place while the CO2 level change was a fraction of that during the modern 50-year period ending in 2013.
From this actual NOAA/NCDC climate record, one can fairly surmise the following: First, modern global warming change is not accelerating, nor unprecedented. Second, that natural climate change is most likely responsible (see Nature science journal article) for the majority of warming increases experienced during the two 50-year periods, not human CO2 emissions.
The IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis - and the entire climate change alarmist community - is getting hammered from all sides by the growing research that points to natural climate variation (ie, oscillations, patterns, cycles) being the principal causes of warming since the 1950s.
The latest evidence is coming from satellites that monitor the world's clouds and energy inflows.
As the adjacent charts depict (information derived from the RSS and CERES satellite datasets) at least one-third of ocean heating could be explained by the simple change in cloud cover over the oceans for a recent 20-year span.
Combine this natural cloud-induced warming with other earthly/cosmic/solar factors, which also would contribute to the modern warming trend, and it does not leave much of the recent modern warming being a direct result of the IPCC's evil CO2 mantra.
The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA and other agencies promoting catastrophic global warming hope politicians and the public don't realize the significance of the fundamental physics.
Simply stated, the more CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the less influence CO2 has on global temperatures - it's a logarithmic thing.
All climate scientists know this. It's the actual hard physics. (Btw, that "positive" feedback thingy about CO2's "tipping point" impact? That's actually soft science - quasi-speculative, not hard physics.)
The adjacent chart though depicts the factual reality about the ever smaller impact of growing levels of CO2.
The reddish columns represent a plot of global temperature sensitivity to CO2. Specifically, they represent 60-year changes in global temperature divided by the corresponding 60-year change in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) - a ratio.
The bright red curve is a simple 20-period average of that ratio, which has been declining since the 1950's. Recall that it is the IPCC that states categorically that modern "dangerous" warming started in the 1950s with the growth of industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
Finally, the rapid growth of total atmospheric CO2 levels is shown by the black dots.
When it's all put together, per the IPCC, the red columns should be gaining in height as the years pass due to the accumulation of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere grows. Taller columns means that the ever increasing amounts of emissions are causing an even greater temperature change.
Clearly, the empirical evidence reveals that as atmospheric CO2 levels have grown, the impact on 60-year temperature changes has shrunk. From a high in the 1950s, to a very low impact as of 2012 (see blue column).
In summary, it's these stubborn climate facts that expose the invalidity/weakness of the AGW alarmist hypothesis. Sure, CO2 has an impact on temperatures but its maximum impact was decades ago and it is shrinking.
As human CO2 emissions continue to increase in the future, the resultant global warming will be smaller and smaller, and will continue to be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
Note: Excel used to plot datasets. Ratio is simply the 60-year change in annual HadCRUT4 temperatures divided by the 60-year change in annual atomspheric CO2 levels. Dataset sources.
for example, the top chart (A) for two economic variables reveals an
incredibly strong correlation, a 'cause and effect' that is strikingly
obvious since 2007. (see original here)
The bottom chart (B) reveals the correlation between temperatures (GISS/NASA) and CO2 levels during the exact same time period as chart A.
Look carefully - THERE IS NO CORRELATION! And over the last 15 years, the R2 equals a miserably low 0.05
Unicorn climate science ignores the empirical evidence, replaced with wishful fantasies that don't exist in the real world.P.S. Yep, the bottom chart does plot a slight cooling trend for the NASA temperature dataset since January 2007. (NASA/CO2 plot sources here; used Excel to produce the plots, linear trend and correlation)
The two images above are derived from one of the study's own charts (see the Bob Tisdale article).
The chart on the left depicts those areas of the world that experienced modern warming supposedly greater than any warming over the last 2,000 years; and, the chart on the right represents those areas where modern warming was less than that of certain periods during the past 2,000 years. Both charts have the past 2,000 year atmospheric levels superimposed (the pinkish curve) on them.
It is from the Tisdale analysis that it first becomes apparent that the law of unintended consequences has interestingly come into play - the study's authors have actually built a case (be it likely an unforced error) that supports the views of the majority of catastrophic global warming skeptics/lukewarmers.
From the study itself, and a close review of the above images, we now know the following:
First, as even the New York Times points out, this study determined that the Arctic was warmer during the 1940s to 1970s than during years of the late 20th century. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Greenland ice core data, modern warming is still below peaks of the Medieval & Roman periods.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Third, this study finds Antarctica was warmer, from the 2nd through 13th centuries, than during our modern era. (Sidebar: If the approximate modern instrumental global warming increase of 0.85°C since 1850 is added to the Vostok ice core data, modern warming is still below the peak temperature between 1AD and 1000AD.) Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fourth, this study points out that true global warming has not taken place in the modern era, but regional strong warming has. Of the 7 regional areas analyzed, only 3 exhibit a strong warming (more likely only 2, see point #11 below). The other four regions, not so much. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Fifth, the study clearly indicates that major climate change is taking place at all times, in different manners, across the globe. Climate change is not some new modern phenomenon. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Sixth, the study shows atmospheric CO2 levels are not a cause of past major climate change. Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, CO2 levels are stable yet climate change is constantly happening. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eighth, this study, in combination with the known recent global temperature trend (subsequent to this study's ending date of 2000AD), clearly makes an indisputable case that recent modern global warming is not as claimed: unprecedented; unequivocal; irrefutable; irreversible; nor dangerously accelerating. Confirms view of skeptics.
Ninth, this study affirms that periods of "unprecedented" warming do not cause the IPCC's urban legend of "runaway," "tipping point," dangerous global warming. Of course, the hottest period ever recorded (Minoan era) in the ice cores over the last 4,000 years already proved that the mythical "tipping point" is just that. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Tenth, this study again provides proof that the AGW-alarmist researchers will use each and every attempt to remove and/or minimize the exceptional Medieval Warming Period that the vast majority of local/regional paleo research studies, and the historical literature, have well documented. It is simply freaking amazing that this group of researchers would present an analysis of Europe's past warming without the extreme and extended warming of the Medieval era (see chart on right). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
Eleventh, this study clearly proves to the public that the proponents of AGW-alarmism will utilize excessive cherry-picking of empirical paleo research to fabricate their "scientific" claims of modern "unprecedented" warming. Not only did this study exclude the preponderance of paleo-scientists' research that documents past extreme warming, but this study was brazen enough to include paleo temperature reconstructions that even a peer-reviewed science journal ultimately rejected because of its statistical flim-flam. Without the infamous, widely discredited Gergis et al. study, it is highly likely that the "Australasia" region of the above chart on the left would have to be moved to the chart of the right, above - thus leaving just 2 regions of the world that may have had modern "unprecedented" warming in the 20th century, and only a single region of the world that had "unprecedented" warming since 1970 (recall that this study confirmed the Arctic was warmer from the 1940s to the 1970s). Confirms view of skeptics, check.
(click on image to enlarge, data sources)
He is the scientific antithesis of those fringe, global warming alarmists predicting climate change disasters and doomsday over the last few decades. Fringe-green personalities such as Joe Romm, Bill McKibben, John Holdren, Michael Mann, Leonardo DiCaprio, James Hansen, Al Gore, Jeff Masters, Paul Erhlich are just some of the quack climate prognosticators-of-hysteria that Happer usually mops the science lab floor with.
And Happer is at it again, taking to task the anti-science clerics in a piece written for the Watts Up With That? blog. His current ire is focused on the crazed CO2-fanatics' claims of future temperatures by year 2050.
In his article, Happer discusses the basic disregard of physics that a hapless (witless?) WSJ reporter is responsible for. Instead of writing about known science, she instead lends credibility to an utterly ludicrous +6.0 degree warming prediction from the fundamentalists, which has no real basis in physics.
As the good doctor explains, per the logarithmic nature of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels, the subsequent global temperature increase will essentially be a +1.0 degree increase - not 2 degrees, not 3 and certainly not 6. This is irrefutable physics, explained in detail via the requisite formulas.
The real-world physics does not allow for a fantastic 6 degree increases to be achieved; for that to happen, the IPCC's mythical positive feedbacks have to arise.
In reality though, there is no acceptable physics science that supports the belief that positive feedbacks will arise, and at the same time produce the hypothetical big temperature increases. And adding to the green clerics' fallible alarmism, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that the fantasized feedbacks of their consistently wrong climate models even exists (hmmm...kind of like those fantasized, mythical 72 virgins).
With all that in mind, the above chart attempts to visualize (using the gold-standard, IPCC empirical temperature dataset) what Dr. Happer has explained. Let's breakdown this Excel chart to its components:
1. The blue curve (with the bluish area underneath) represents the simple running 12-month average of global absolute temperatures calculated from HadCRUT4 monthly anomalies. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850), the actual global temperature increase has been about +0.85°C, through February 2013.
2. The red curve represents a simple 60-month average of the blue curve's data. The recent decade+ global warming pause (i.e., "stall") is clearly evident.
3. The light orange curve is a 2nd order fitted trend of the global temperature measurements extended out till year 2050. Based on this Excel fitted trend of all the empirical evidence, global temperatures are headed for a 15.0°C average by 2050 - an increase of about +0.53 degrees over today.
4. The darker orange arrows on the right axis represents the likely range of temperature increase from a doubling of initial 1850AD CO2 levels that known physics supports (although Dr. Happer's calculations indicate an increase of+1.0 degree, this Excel chart utilizes a narrow range that many other experts have spoken to). The possilbe range per the physics: +1.0 to +1.5 degrees.
5. The black-dotted curve includes monthly estimates of monthly atmospheric CO2 levels prior to 1959, and thereafter, the actual monthly measurements.
6. The grey curve is a 2nd order fitted trend for CO2 levels extended out to year 2050.
7. Finally, the pink-dashed line represents the non-physics +6.0°C global warming increase predicted by many of the fear-mongers.
This visualization of the empirical reality lends solid observational support to the physics laid out by Dr. Happer. In addition, the chart denotes how absurd the +6 degree fear-mongering is, and why "scientists" and reporters promulgating it should not be believed.
(click on the chart to enlarge, data)
Additional climate and temperature charts
Note: Above chart uses the NCDC global dataset published through March 2013. The left two columns (CO2 & temperature) represent the 15 years (180 months) ending March 1998, the right two columns represent the 15 years ending March 2013.
(click image to enlarge, source)
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
(click on image to enlarge, image source)
In another fascinating exposé of climate science flim-flam produced by yet another group of academia climate-quacks, Steve McIntyre has the adjacent chart embedded in his article.
This chart represents a 5,000 year span of temperature variation in the Arctic region (Ellesmere Island) per peer-reviewed research . To add context, we superimposed the atmospheric CO2 levels (mauve curve) from the last 2,000 years.
Several very obvious conclusions can be drawn that gut claims by anti-science alarmists and quacks:
1. Climate change is a science-proven constant.
2. Periods of global warming and global cooling happen frequently
3. The Medieval and Roman periods were warmer than the modern era
4. Temperatures changed regardless of CO2 levels
5. CO2, be it natural or human, is not the globe's "thermostat"
Finally, per the HockeySchtick blog, it is known that the essentially barren Ellesmere Island had temperatures some 2 to 3 degrees higher than current temps, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions of our modern consumer/industrial era.
Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.
This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.
The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.
If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.
Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist.
The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.
A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)
Conclusions from the chart:
#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.
#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.
#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.
#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).
#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).
#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.
#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.
#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.
Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:
"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem..."
Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):
"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.
"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008
“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007
Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:
"Section 126.96.36.199.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""
"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."
Note 1: A simple
hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm;
then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause
evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the
upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms
the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms
even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."
Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).
Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.
The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.
As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.
Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.
The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).
Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):
“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979 to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1 percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]
#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.
#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely
#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.
#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.
#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
Despite many climate scientists now being forced to reconsider their runaway "tipping point" AGW hypothesis of high climate sensitivity, and the U.S. public placing a theoretical climate change as a very low priority, there remain those political elites and mainstream "journalists" bitterly clinging to their blatantly incorrect, non-scientific, irrational (insane?) fears of "scary" global warming.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
Additional modern temperature charts.
- As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
- In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
- The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
- Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
- All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
- Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
(click on charts to enlarge - data sources)
The chart's starting point is January 1880, which represents the first data point (pink circle) of a 30-year temperature change, from January 1850 to January 1880. The chart's last plot point (green circle) is the difference from December 1982 to December 2012.
The black curve is the simple 5-year average (60-month moving) of all the 30-year changes. And the light grey curve is the plot of monthly CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels from 1880 through 2012.
Per this gold-standard empirical evidence, one can safely conclude the following:
#1. CO2 levels have consistently increased, with short pauses, over this extended period.
#2. 30-year temperature changes peaked both in 1939 and 1998, and then subsequently declined indicating a more powerful-than-CO2, non-greenhouse gas influence at work.
#3. Higher CO2 levels are not causing runaway, accelerating, rapid, irreversible, dangerous and/or tipping point long-term global temperature changes, which is contrary to all conventional and "consensus" IPCC expert opinions and their climate models.
#4. The simple 5-year moving average curve during the very recent past indicates a declining period for 30-year changes, possibly signalling an extended cooling phase is upon us.
#5. The 30-year temperature changes, prior to the post-1960 consumer/industrial surge in human CO2 emissions, rival those of the modern up/down 30-year changes, in terms of amount, duration and speed.
#6. Long-term (30 year) global temperature change appears to follow an up and down pattern - an oscillation phenomenon, so to speak, that occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
#7. Since this oscillation is not being produced by higher CO2 levels, then some natural phenomenon is likely driving long-term global temperature change, overwhelming the apparent trivial impact of CO2.
There are any number of natural climate phenomena working singularly, or in concert, that are responsible for climate change. An example of one such natural pattern is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) that is adjacent and shown here.
As can be seen, the AMO pattern is curiously similar to the above 30-year global temperature change plot of peaks and valleys.
As NOAA scientists have established, this powerful, climate-changing oscillation has been identified in historical paleoclimate proxies, confirming that human CO2 has nothing to do with it.
And the AMO is just one of many natural climate forces. Another powerful, natural climate-change phenomena that dwarfs the global warming impact of human CO2 is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which is best explained by this expert.
Additional temperature and climate charts.
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
Taxpayer-funded climate scientists and ideologue politicians have continuously predicted that the globe will suffer from dangerous global warming; and they claimed that human CO2 emissions acted as the world's climate thermostat.
As the adjacent chart reveals, the IPCC's own temperature gold-standard (HadCRUT3) refutes the "experts" and "elites" hysterical, anti-science prognostications:
#1. The global temperature dataset clearly indicates that the world has exhibited a slight global cooling trend since the spike in temps from the super El Niño of 1997/98. That's 180 months (15 years) of non-dangerous global warming.
#2. The chart's thin black line is a plot of the monthly changes in CO2 levels. The correlation between monthly temperature and CO2 changes ranges from slim to none - this supposed thermostat relation of CO2 to temperatures has a ludicrously low R2 of 0.01. CO2 is not only not a "thermostat," it's likely not even a major climate forcing, per the actual data.
#3. While global temperatures have been slightly cooling, the global changes in monthly CO2 levels have been slightly increasing (note smooth grey curve - a 2nd order fit).
#4. Simply stated, this actual IPCC gold-standard empirical evidence robustly refutes all the anti-science predictions/claims of climate "experts" and alarmist "elites."
And, as we are currently witnessing, the green-sharia, anti-human fanatics are now having to do some serious crawling-back from their previous anti-CO2 agenda and bogus-science blinders to the climate reality.
(click on chart to enlarge - data sources)
James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)
Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).
Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?
It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.
The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.
None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).
To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.
Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.
There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.
Other modern temperature charts.
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
The UN's IPCC continues to claim that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 levels. This high sensitivity, in combination with the mythical positive feedbacks, will thus supposedly increase global warming some 4 to 6 degrees centigrade by year 2100.
However, the actual temperature data do not support this speculative AGW hypothesis. If the climate was highly sensitive to CO2, then the adjacent plot of data would look substantially different.
Because of the huge increase over the 50 years ending 2012, the global temperature increase should be significantly larger than the previous 50-year period ending 1962. Clearly, levels of atmospheric CO2 are not as all powerful as the IPCC fear-mongering would have us believe.
In fact, despite an increase of CO2 levels that was 4 times larger than the previous 50-year period, the global temperatures ending 2012 increased less, suggesting that the climate sensitivity to CO2 ranges from lame to very weak.
(click on image to enlarge - data sources)
As in the past, the latest 2012 year-end data from NOAA confirms that the feared CO2-caused accelerated warming is not climate science reality.
The adjacent chart is a plot of annual changes from calendar year to calendar year. Since the 1880s, annual changes have remained in a narrow band with no acceleration trend causing a continuous positive breakout from that historical band.
The 5-year average (blue curve) of annual changes reflects the stability of temperature changes, revealing no major impact from the ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
(click on image to enlarge)
The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled - a total of 184 months. This cooling trend took place during a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
This slight cooling trend is opposite of what the IPCC (and NASA's James Hansen) predicted for global temperatures.
The IPCC prediction of rapid global warming is based on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions would increase atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels; the increase of greenhouse gases would allow more radiated heat to be retained; the retained heat would warm the atmosphere; and, the atmosphere would then warm the world's oceans and land surfaces. Such predicted warming would set in motion a "runaway tipping point" that would produce catastrophic climate disasters and a doomsday for civilization.
Instead, as the adjacent chart indicates, the lower atmosphere since 1997 (per the RSS satellite measurements) has actually been exhibiting a cooling trend, versus the the obvious warming trend for the January 1980 to April 1997 period (red curve on chart).
Like the RSS dataset, the HadCRUT global temperatures also exhibit almost the same warming/cooling dichotomy. What is very apparent in both datasets is that the '97-98 Super El Niño shifted temperatures up to a new level, which then global temperatures resumed their normal variation around. Subsequent to this temperature range shift, growing CO2 emissions have not caused the long predicted "global warming."
#1. Satellite measurements reveal both a modest global warming and very slight global cooling period since 1980.
#2. Levels of atmospheric CO2 appear to have no consistent influence on global temperatures since 1980.
#3. Global warming is not "irrefutable," "unequivocal," "rapidly increasing," "accelerating," "incontrovertible," "indisputable," "unquestionable" nor "unprecedented." It's quite the opposite of all these qualifiers.
#4. Any IPCC scientist, climate researcher, academic, government bureaucrat, journalist and pundit who states and/or implies that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth,' is, quite honestly, a serious liar. The empirical evidence is the scientific truth, not a person's blatant verbal misrepresentation.
#5. Politicians and celebrities who state and/or imply that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth' is at best, stuck-on-stupid. Unfortunately, that seems to be the dominating characteristic of individuals involved in the political, sports and entertainment worlds. (Although, with politicians it may not be the case of being stupid, instead it may be more of a case of being criminally corrupt in order to enrich himself via "green" projects - think Solyndra.)
#6. As the satellite data show, the hot summer in the U.S. was not a result of global warming (as suggested by many covered by points #5 and #6) since global atmospheric temperatures during May, June and July were not extreme nor unusual.
(click image to enlarge, source)
So, if CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature changes, then what is?
The adjacent chart is a plot of daytime high temperatures and solar radiation. The very visible close relationship between solar energy and the maximum temperatures is very obvious, and is irrefutable - it's the sun, stupid!
With most scientists now recognizing that the jihad against CO2 emissions was not really supportable by the empirical evidence, new scientific efforts are being conducted to determine what are the major factors influencing global warming/cooling. And, the solar influence now appears to be the major culprit.
In the realm of the political climate, both Romney and Ryan should be constantly bashing Obama and the Democrats over their destruction of the coal industry, and the anti-science green, fanatic jihad unleashed on the American economy. Driving the coal industry to bankruptcy and curtailing oil drilling across the U.S. was a completely needless hatchet attack on economic growth by Obama's EPA.
(click on image to enlarge, source)
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
(click image to enlarge)
In climate science reality, the actual global temperature observations over the last 15 years do not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis.
Central to the CAGW hypothesis is that increasing human CO2 emissions will raise atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. Subsequent to the atmospheric CO2 increase, global warming will automatically and consistently increase.
Once the globe starts warming, the AGW hypothesis states that a high climate sensitivity to CO2 will initiate a dangerous positive feedback loop: the rising temperatures will increase water evaporation; the powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas water vapor will then increase; then global temperatures will increase even more, the melting of ice sheets occurs; thus, less solar energy will be reflected into space; and global temperatures will then increase even more; and etc., etc.
This powerful and relentless positive feedback loop will produce unequivocal, robust, significant, unprecedented, irrefutable, rapid and accelerating global warming. At least that is what every "expert" climate model based on the CAGW hypothesis predicted.
But did the above prediction/scenario/forecast happen? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opposite happened.
The adjacent chart depicts the last 30 years of increasing CO2 levels and global temperature trends. This actual climate evidence is sliced into two time periods: the 15 years ending July 1997 and the 15 years ending July 2012. The real world evidence reveals the following:
1. The far right column (grey) shows that CO2 levels were increasing at a 147 ppm per century rate by the end of July 1997. Actual CO2 levels were at the 364 ppm mark.
2. For the 15 years ending 1997, global temperatures were increasing at +1.08°C per century trend (red column).
3. Since July 1997, the growth of CO2 levels has increased to a 197 ppm per century trend, and now stands at the 395 ppm mark.
4. After 30 years of increasing human CO2 emissions and faster growing atmospheric CO2 levels, the last 15 years have witnessed the previous global warming morph into a global cooling tend (blue column) at a -0.24°C per century trend.
Conclusions: The climate scientist and climate models that have long predicted catastrophic global warming from CO2 emissions are proven to be undeniably incorrect. The AGW hypothesis does not reflect climate reality. The actual empirical evidence proves the CAGW hypothesis to be irretrievably wrong. The climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is, at best, tiny. The natural forces of the climate will produce negative feedbacks that completely overwhelm the hypothetical CAGW positive feedback loop. Thus, while CO2 emissions will likely induce a slight warming, the natural climatic forces will dictate and dominate our climate future.
Finally, any "science" association, journalist, politician, celebrity, weatherperson, bureaucrat and pundit who says that dangerous global warming is happening, is unequivocal, is rapid, is irrefutable, is unprecedented, is robust, is significant and is accelerating can only be one thing: he or she is a pathological liar.Data used: HadCRUT and CO2
The latest NOAA/NCDC temperature dataset indicates that a long-term cooling trend for the continental U.S. persists. The last 15 years are shown in the chart below (180 months ending 5/31/2012)
While the recent U.S. higher temperatures during early 2012 (as seen in the above chart) has been very enjoyable, how does it compare with past U.S. temperature changes over the long-term? And, is the 2012 U.S. warming a result of human CO2 emissions as some chicken-little pundits have claimed?
The chart below adds some context to help sort out how the recent warming compares to past U.S. temperature change.
See that red dot way over on the right side? That's May 2012. More specifically, that's the May 2012 increase in the U.S. temperatures over May 1997 - a 15-year period. The jagged red curve prior to the May 2012 red dot represents all the 15-year changes in temperature, calendar month to calendar month.
Plus the chart's blue curve is the 5-year average of those 180-month (15 years) temperature changes. Did you note that the current 5-year mean of long-term U.S. temperature change since 1910 is not exactly "unprecedented"? Did you note the average is not exactly "accelerating"? And btw, did you note that the blue curve was higher in the 1930's than during the last two decades?
And, what about those black dots? Oh, that's right, they represent the actual atmospheric CO2 levels, which are supposedly causing unprecedented, unequivocal, accelerating, rapid and very dangerous long-term warming increases.
Hey, don't be a slacker now - look closely at the evidence in the bottom chart. Can you see how CO2 is causing rapid and unequivocal long-term global warming increases since 1910? Don't worry, we can't see it either. (The light grey curve is the 5-year average of CO2 level increases.)
We pose the above rhetorical questions for a reason. It's always important to consider the actual temperature empirical evidence. Then compare it to what is reported. Then put it into context, from both a long-term temperature change and CO2 perspective.
Although the U.S. (and the rest of the globe) has warmed from the bottom of the Little Ice Age, the long-term warming is not accelerating dangerously from increased greenhouse gases, be it CO2 or other. That is the objective determination from the data.
The final conclusion? Essentially, the actual temperature change evidence is contrary to the scary global/U.S. "warming" stories and climate change fear-mongering that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angles Times, CNN, NBC and other mainstream press outlets religiously (fanatically?), without due diligence, deliver.
(click on image to enlarge)
Doomsday climate scientists would have everyone believe that human CO2 emissions causes long-term climate change in form of "accelerating" warming, especially the oceans. If this were the case, then it should be easy to prove using the global ocean temperature observations from NOAA.
As the adjacent chart depicts, while atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased (black dots), the plot of the 30-year change in ocean temperatures (jagged blueish curve) exhibits wide variation.The smooth blue and grey curves represent polynomial fitted trends to the observations, clearly demonstrating that trends in CO2 and ocean warming are not closely related - well, truth be told, they're moving in very opposite directions.
From these opposing trends, one could safely surmise that the correlation between CO2 levels and long-term ocean warming is, in fact, not robust, but rather weak.
Moving on, the red curve is a 5-year average of the long-term temperature change, which obviously indicates the current 5-year average of change being well below previous values, and is now declining. The red curve also reveals that the historical temperature change prior to the 1950's was significantly higher and actually accelerated faster than that experienced over the last three decades (the modern doomsday "global warming").
Additional temperature and climate charts.
Note: The above chart plots the long-term ocean temperature changes (30-year changes). For example, the temperature change datapoint for April 2012 represents the change from April 1982 to April 2012. Likewise, the January 1910 datapoint represents the temperature change from January 1880 to January 1910.
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. Among scientists, it has become common knowledge that the IPCC's climate models continue to be divorced from reality (see chart left). The models are the foundation of "consensus" that the IPCC and climate doomsday scientists fabricated in an attempt to stifle debate.
As the adjacent updated IPCC chart shows, the recent years of non-warming, despite a massive increase in human CO2 emissions, is an empirical evidence consensus of a scientifically lame AGW hypothesis promulgated by the IPCC.
While the empirical evidence continues to corroborate the failure of the IPCC "consensus" and its climate models, scientists push on with their research to better understand what are the real climate change causes that would drive global temperature change, be it warming or cooling.
Indeed, a lot of new effort has been focused on atmospheric aerosols and their impact on global temperatures, which everyone agreed the IPCC was woefully ignorant of. The most recent scientific efforts have proven conclusively that aerosols are a major influence on temperatures and climate change - unfortunately, there is no "consensus" as to direction and degree of influence.
"New papers are constantly popping up in scientific journals discovering some amazing new impact of dirty air...“Researchers have yet to fully analyse the new results,”...“these are just the first wave of a deluge in modelling data.”...“This is fundamentally new science,”...“The new generation of models is changing the kinds of questions we face as scientists.”...It seems that climate modelers are finding surprises galore with their new play toys—warming and cooling, drying and increased precipitation—all linked to aerosols...Inundated by a wave of new results, confusion reigns. “What we need now is to really understand what the models are doing, and why they differ,”..."
Adding to the major aerosol confusion that climate science now has, is the remaining huge and original unsolved mystery of CO2. Yes, CO2 and its associated 'carbon cycle' still remains a significant mystery beyond scientists grasp.
The newest research confirms there is a 'Carbon [CO2] Puzzle' that scientists just can't explain. This remains a bold admission that historical climate change (in terms of CO2's impact) remains beyond the comprehension of the IPCC and its computers; and, likewise, climate change of the future science is still unable to solve the basic CO2 riddle due to a very fundamental lack of knowledge - "where the heck does CO2 go?".
Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.
The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.
"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
(image source here)
Read here. While climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits wasted everyone's time and money about catastrophic destruction from CO2-induced global warming and climate change, real scientists continued their investigations of the climate and what drives it. Latest research confirms what the National Academy of Sciences published way back in 2000.
A new study by Allen et al. has determined that black carbon and other modern pollutants have been major contributors to temperature warming, which has enhanced the expansion of the tropics into higher latitudes. This research also confirms that the IPCC's insistence that human CO2 is the principal driver of climate change is seriously wrong, beside being hopelessly outdated.
"Observational analyses have shown the width of the tropical belt increasing in recent decades as the world has warmed...we use a climate model with detailed aerosol physics to show that increases in heterogeneous warming agents—including black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone—are noticeably better than greenhouse gases at driving expansion, and can account for the observed summertime maximum in tropical expansion. Mechanistically, atmospheric heating from black carbon and tropospheric ozone has occurred at the mid-latitudes, generating a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet, thereby relocating the main division between tropical and temperate air masses." [Robert J.Allen, Steven C. Sherwood, Joel R. Norris, Charles S. Zender 2012: Nature]
(click on image to enlarge)
Here is the typical plot of the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperatures. As a change in pace, a different depiction of "global warming" is adjacent.
The left side of this chart reveals the current 15-yr per century global temperature change trend (-0.12 degree), as of April 2012 - the blue bar near the bottom. The grey bar represents the massive amount of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere over the last 15 calendar years.
In contrast, for the previous 15 years ending April 1997, the red bar represents the per century temperature change trend (+1.08 degree) and partially hidden grey bar the total human CO2 emissions released during the calendar year span of 1982 - 1996.
The data portrayed in this chart, when combined, represents the last 30 years (360 consecutive months, starting May 1982 and ending April 2012) of human CO2 emissions and global temperature change.
Note: Linear trends are not predictions.
(click on images to enlarge, source)
Read here. The manipulation of temperature datasets, by climate alarmist scientists, to bolster the case for anthropogenic global warming has been discussed often at 'C3' and is even admitted to by those with close association to the Climategate fiascoes.
Phil Jones: ‘The instrumental records we examined seemed to be showing warmer temperatures than our computer models indicate should have occurred. We have therefore adjusted the instrumental record.’ (source here and here)
One of the simplest means to bolster the case for modern global warming, after 1950, is to "adjust" temperatures down (i.e. cool them) prior to 1950 - voila, modern global warming is enhanced by data manipulation alone. As can be seen in the above images for several individual EU climate stations, the blue lines represent the original temps and the red curves, pre-1950, the "cooling" adjustments for the period of 1920 to 1950 are obvious.
(click image to enlarge)
The farcical 'connect-the-dots' campaign about "evil" CO2 is based on the non-scientific opinions and speculative predictions of both NASA's James Hansen and the UN's IPCC. Time and time again, their predictions, and those of other alarmists, are proven to be wrong.
The adjacent chart is another example of just how wrong the anti-CO2 alarmist crowd has been. Their prediction that increasing CO2 emissions would cause an increase in severe weather, such as tropical storms, is galactically incorrect. As a result, their doomsday predictive capabilities have become an internet joke.
And it's not just tropical storms predictions that have been this bad - it's every severe weather category that they've predicted CO2-induced catastrophic events for.
Previous connect-the-dot postings.
(click on image to enlarge, image source)
Read here. The adjacent chart reveals the number of days between landfalls of a major hurricane striking the U.S. Since the last Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane strike, it's been 2,412 days and counting.
Since 1900, that is the longest span ever between major landfalls. And this significant climate science factoid is contrary to the IPCC "experts" whose consensus prediction categorically claimed that these large devastating storms would be more intense and more frequent, due to the increasing human CO2 emissions and global warming.
As is obvious to even the most fanatical believer in the CAGW religion, the scientific, empirical evidence readily documents that the CO2-alarmist "experts" have been spectacularly wrong.
With that said, the U.S. is long overdue for a major severe hurricane strike and it could well happen in 2012. Then again, it might not. Either way, the IPCC has proven to be incapable of any scientific predictive skill.
(click on image to enlarge)
Over the first four months of 2012, the continental U.S. has experienced very warm and enjoyable temperatures. Yet, despite the warming of the U.S., the rest of the globe experienced temperatures below average, as the chart depicts.
The adjacent chart plots the average temperature anomaly for the first four months over the last 17 years ("why 17?" you ask) and the average CO2 level for those same four months. The green curve represents the five-year average of the temperature anomalies and the black CO2 curve is also a five-year average.
Obviously, over the last 17 years, hundreds of billions of tons of human CO2 emissions from consumption of fossil fuels has caused the atmospheric CO2 levels to increase dramatically. Yet global temperatures are not rapidly warming but instead have been basically flat to a minor cooling over that time period.
(click on images to enlarge, source of images)
Read here. Multiple "scientific" personalities seeking fame, fortune and influence (such as the likes of Hansen, Cullen and Rahmstorf) have attempted to frighten the public and policymakers by stating that global warming was causing an acceleration of global sea level rise. Depending on the given personality, they predict that recent "acceleration" will cause sea levels to increase anywhere from 4 feet to 75 feet by 2100.
Empirically speaking, these "predictions" are utter nonsense with literally no facutal basis - and, btw, that's why exceptionally lazy and/or amazingly stupid NY Times and Washington Post "journalists" just love these hysterical claims.
Per the actual tide gauge data plots shown above though, it is more than obvious that the readers of the mainstream press have been significantly mislead by the catastrophic global warming hucksters. The chart on the left represents annual sea level change since 1900. The red line is the 10-year average.
One does not have to be a climate scientist to realize that this chart unequivocally reveals a pattern of constant annual variation in sea levels with absolutely zero acceleration.
The plot on the right, examines the 10-year average in even more more detail. Since 1900, the trend of the 10-yr average actually shows a deceleration, not an acceleration of sea level rise. Using the 10-yr average at the end of 2011 as the sea rise gospel, by year 2100, sea levels would only increase by some 7 inches - not exactly the millions of "climate refugees" type of catastrophe (another spectacularly wrong AGW huckster prediction) that the MSM has been caught parroting without due diligence.
Climate alarmist James Hansen has long predicted the catastrophic tipping point of global temperatures from human CO2 emissions. His predictions include the seas will soon be boiling and a significant increase of extreme weather events, due to the excessive warming of the tropical atmosphere.
The excessive warming of the atmosphere over the Tropics is referred to as the AGW 'hotspot' and is the key signature of anthropogenic (by CO2 greenhouse gas) global warming.
Actual temperature measurements of the tropical atmosphere, as shown above, clearly indicate that the catastrophic 'hotspot' does not exist. Additionally, empirical evidence has the tropical atmosphere cooling over the last 15 years, at a -1.2 degree rate by year 2100, which is exact opposite predicted by IPCC climate models and the "experts," such as James Hansen.
Read here. The predicted "accelerating" sea level rise has been a fearmongering staple of the IPCC's global warming alarmists and the mainstream press for decades. For pure hysteria sake, nothing beats the image of flooding populous coastal areas with the intent to frighten the public.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, the empirical evidence does not support their grossly speculative predictions from discredited climate models.
Firstly, the "accelerating" global sea level rise has not taken place as multiple research studies have documented.
Secondly, the alarmist creed that the melting of Greenland's glaciers would cause devastating ocean rises has been completely debunked by a new peer reviewed study on some 200+ glaciers on the world's largest island.
"...titled “21st Century Evolution of Greenland Outlet Glacier Velocities” [Moon et al.] examined the flow characteristics from nearly 200 glaciers across Greenland for the period 2000-2010 as analyzed using synthetic aperture radar data collected from various satellites...And what they found...was that the patterns of flow rate changes across Greenland were complex, both in space and time. Glaciers that were accelerating during a few years were found to be decelerating in others. Some accelerating glaciers were found in close proximity to other glaciers that were decelerating..."Finally, our observations have implications for recent work on sea level rise...Our wide sampling of actual 2000 to 2010 changes shows that glacier acceleration across the ice sheet remains far below these estimates, suggesting that sea level rise associated with Greenland glacier dynamics remains well below the low-end scenario (9.3 cm [3.7 inches] by 2100) at present...Our result is consistent with findings from recent numerical flow models."" [Twila Moon, Ian Joughin, Ben Smith, Ian Howat 2012: Science]
(click on images to enlarge)
The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.
The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.
Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.
The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.
Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.