Despite massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the last 60 years, the long-term trend remains well below a one degree (+0.26°C) increase per century rate.
As the inset chart reveals, the more recent 10-year trend has the representative UK region cooling at an amazing -8.7°C per century rate (a -7.7°C decrease by year 2100).
The following chart is a plot of one-year temperature changes (moving 12-month), with the historical CO2 levels depicted. Clearly, one-year temperature changes are not getting larger, and ever larger, as an "accelerated" warming climate would require.
The red curve is a twenty-year average of the temperature changes, which indicates no long-term influence on CET temperature change by CO2 levels, natural or human.
Conclusion: UK citizens need not worry about "rapid," "accelerating" and "irreversible" warming. There is no credible empirical evidence supporting such CO2-AGW alarmism.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Data Sources: CET & CO2. Charts created with Excel. Note: Linear trends are not predictions.
Due to the incredibly bad reporting by the mainstream press, many Americans believe the U.S. suffers from "accelerated warming" and increasing severe weather - neither are true
First, as the adjacent chart reveals, U.S. temperatures are not "accelerating." The red curve is the 12-month moving average (since 1895), which clearly shows no acceleration, and shows zero relationship to the growing levels of atmospheric CO2 levels (black dots).
As can be seen, U.S. monthly temperatures have a wide variation (the blue up/down plot) in any given year, fluctuating between low and high extremes.
Again, no "accelerating" warming trend is evident from the actual temperature empirical evidence. (click on charts to enlarge)
Read here. This second chart plots the total number of severe tornadoes (F2, F3, F4 & F5) in decade groups (the 2000's include 2011). This actual empirical evidence substantiates that severe weather events, as represented by extreme tornadoes, are not increasing in the U.S.
Conclusion: The mainstream press (eg., NYT, WaPo, Time, CBS, NBC, LA Times, etc.) willfully and unequivocally reports misinformation regarding severe weather and global warming. They do so to purposefully mislead the public and policymakers regarding global warming and climate change.
The NOAA / NCDC climate research group published year-end U.S. temperature data confirming that U.S. is still cooling - CO2 has zero global warming impact on U.S.
As the Climategate 2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the chart below depicts. (click on to enlarge)
This "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending December was the 5th coldest December-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, December 2011 was the 22nd warmest since 1895 (December 1998 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.4°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending December 2011 (Januart 1, 2002 thru December, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 7.2°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
Satellite measurements confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
Scientists from Jet Propulsion Lab and Univ. of Washington determine that fresh water from Russia's rivers and the Arctic Oscillation are major factors for Arctic sea ice melt
Read here. The 'Big Green' controlled IPCC and the typical Climategate scientist have publicly claimed that the recent Arctic sea ice melt is entirely due to human CO2 emissions. The majority of climate scientists don't agree with this IPCC stance, knowing full well that other natural and human influences are at work in the Arctic.
New research, by scientists from the University of Washington and NASA's Jet propulsion Lab, have now discovered that freshwater from several large Russian rivers is being relocated to certain regions in the Arctic that allows other regions to be more vulnerable to increased sea ice melt. The force that is redirecting freshwater is not human CO2 but instead nature's own Arctic Oscillation.
This latest research confirms that any speculation of human CO2 emissions being the major cause of sea ice melting is likely very wrong. (image source)
"A hemisphere-wide phenomenon – and not just regional forces – has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea"..."Frigid freshwater flowing into the Arctic Ocean from three of Russia’s mighty rivers was diverted hundreds of miles to a completely different part of the ocean in response to a decades-long shift in atmospheric pressure associated with the phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation"..."In the Eurasian Basin, the change means less freshwater enters the layer known as the cold halocline and could be contributing to declines in ice in that part of the Arctic...The cold halocline normally sits like a barrier between ice and warm water that comes into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. Without salt the icy cold freshwater is lighter, which is why it is able to float over the warm water...In the Beaufort Sea, the water is the freshest it’s been in 50 years of record keeping, he said. The new findings show that only a tiny fraction is from melting ice and the vast majority is Eurasian river water."
New peer reviewed study by James Hansen of NASA / GISS measures recent ocean heat content and his data indicates insignificant warming - thus, oceans by year 2100 will not warm much
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does the number crunching on the Hansen et al 2011 analysis that earth has a serious energy imbalance, and this "imbalance" is represented by an ocean warming equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy over the period of 2005 - 2010.
Now, +0.54 W/m2 sounds like a very serious energy imbalance indeed until one translates what that means in degrees Celsius of ocean warming, then projecting that "warming" out to year 2100. That is exactly what Willis's number crunching did and he discovered that based on Hansen's "serious" energy imbalance that oceans will warm by a laughable and by a barely measurable amount of:
+0.15C degree by 2100 AD
Above is the formula that Willis used to convert the "serious" imbalance into actual degrees warming
Adjacent, is an Excel representation of calculations done by Willis. (click to enlarge)
You can download this 'C3' Excel file to examine/play with the calcs. (If you find an error in our representation of Willis's work, please email us.)
Ben Santer & James Hansen have long been declaring that global warming was accelerating from human CO2 - instead, the real facts reveals their incompetence
Santer and Hansen are two climate modelers that have been spectacularly wrong for so long that it's even painful for skeptics to witness. These two have been cluck-clucking forever about how CO2 levels were causing accelerating and irreversible global warming, with some climate "disruption" thrown in to scare the politicians and policymakers.
However, as the actual empirical evidence through November 2011 reveals, it is highly unlikely that either of these "scientists" could find his own ass with his hands. Even using Santer's own preferred 17-year analysis span (chart on left), it is clear that global warming is insignificant and likely moving towards a cooling phase.
The chart on right shows the climate model abomination that NASA and Hansen base their predictions on. The level of climate science incompetence is mind-boggling. (click on images to enlarge)
The only things Santer and Hansen have managed to succeed at is enrichingthemselves, at the expense of science and the taxpayers.
All the facts, research and evidence establish the true Antarctica reality - the IPCC's "global warming" is not warming and melting the ice sheets
The IPCC and its Climategate maladjusted scientists have long claimed that Antarctica was dangerously warming and predicted its ice sheets were close to catastrophic melting. The only problem with that characterization was its being totally wrong, big-time.
In two previous postings, we discussed how both satellite and thermometer measurements document the extremely cold regions of Antarctic that are covered by ice sheets, and the fact that for the lost 30 years those areas have experienced a slight cooling.
Read here. Adding to the known empirical evidence is the experiences of one of the world's topmost polar scientists, Heinrich Miller. This man is not a climate-model or computer-simulation jock; he is a field scientist who conducts his research in the polar extremes. What does he say about Antarctica?
"Here almost nothing has changed. At least not near the surface. The average annual temperatures have remained the same. There are of course large fluctuations from year to year. If anything over the last 30 years we have a slight cooling trend. And this flies in the face of what is always immediately claimed: ‘The climate is warming and the Antarctic is melting’.”
Read here. The alarmists at the IPCC and 'Big Green' like to point to the gigantic icebergs produced by Antarctica as proof that global warming is directly melting the polar continent with high temperatures. Unfortunately for the alarmists though, research by polar experts have determined the iceberg calving to be a normal condition, happening with regular frequency. Whether its deep warm ocean currents melting floating ice shelfs or the remnants of a far away tsunami, huge icebergs are a natural result.
"Despite what many alarmists will say, humans had nothing to do with the PIG's latest iceberg extravaganza. The events about to unfold on the bottom of the world are, in fact, all natural and have happened countless times before. You see, NASA researchers say this latest iceberg is part of a natural cycle seen every 10 years or so on this particular glacier..."ocean measurements near Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier showed that the ice shelf buttressing the glacier was melting rapidly. This melting was attributed to the presence of relatively warm, deep water on the Amundsen Sea continental shelf."...Satellite photos show huge icebergs were created when the remains of the Japanese tsunami hit the Sulzberger Ice Shelf..."The impact of the tsunami and its train of following dispersed waves... in combination with the ice-shelf and sea-ice conditions provided the fracture mechanism needed to trigger the first calving event from the ice shelf in 46 years,”"
Read here. Finally, climate scientist Eric Steig and his research team have determined that the natural conditions and phases of tropical Pacific waters are the real cause of Antarctica's coastal glaciers' melting.
"He [Steig] noted that sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific last showed significant warming in the 1940s, and the impact in the Amundsen Sea area then was probably comparable to what has been observed recently. That suggests that the 1940s tropical warming could have started the changes in the Amundsen Sea ice shelves that are being observed now...He emphasized that natural variations in tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation play a significant role."
Despite all the research, the recognized experts and empirical evidence though, the IPCC and Climategate's Josefino Comiso are already attempting to smother the facts and truth about Antarctica in the next IPCC report, AR5. Will this level of UN sponsored climate science misinformation eventually rise to the moniker of PolarGate?
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study
Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.
As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.
How about this interesting example?
Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.
"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."
The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.
"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though. Crack cocaine for advocates. A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent. Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."
In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)
Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?
Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.
99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.
Predicted warming of continental U.S. by climate "experts" is proven to be robustly wrong
As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
The climate models used by IPCC are incapable of predicting sea surface temperatures (global warming) with any reliability
Read here. Utilizing climate agency provided data and the commonly installed computer spreadsheet program called Excel, Bob Tisdale does a thorough analysis of ocean temperatures and climate model predictions. In a nutshell, Bob's comparative analysis clearly shows how worthless the climate models truly are.
(As an aside, from the Climategate2.0 emails we learn that the top IPCC scientists are so busy plotting and conspiring against other scientists they don't have the time to learn this powerful analytical tool called Excel. This may explain why the IPCC is so clueless about the robust failures of climate models, no?)
The above charts (click to enlarge) produced by Tisdale show both the Northern and Southern hemisphere actual sea surface temperatures (blue). The charts include the IPCC's climate model projection (red) for the last 17 years. As can be seen, the reality of sea surface temperatures and global warming is significantly different than what the IPCC's climate models predicted.
Per the climate models, the projected warming by 2100 is 5 times greater than the trend based on reality in the Southern Hemisphere and approximately 3 times greater for the Northern Hemisphere. This level of climate model error truly makes the IPCC projections worthless even for decadal periods, let alone for year 2100.
Yet, despite the obvious model failure, climate scientists whose financial security is dependent on the taxpayer dole continue to claim in public that climate model projections are accurate, if not the holy gospel of climate science. In private though, the Climategate2.0 emails indicate that climate scientists have little regard for the billion dollar climate model failures.
Welcome to the world of UN-IPCC climate science corruption.
The United Nations bureaucrats & its Climagegate scientists continue pushing the big lies of man-made global warming and climate change
It has been well documented, and agreed to by the vast majority of climate scientists, that global warming has subsided since 1996. This has occurred despite the large increase in CO2 levels; and, of course, despite the prognostications of the UN's Climategate-savant "scientists" who apparently spend most of their research time and monies plotting against other scientists than doing actual science.
With the recent publication of October 2011 HadCRUT global temperatures (the IPCC's gold-standard), it is again confirmed by the empirical evidence that global warming is not driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, which means that the feared climate change is not being driven by man-made CO2 emissions either.
Climate Models Vs. Reality
15 Years - October 2011
17 Years - October 2011
As the above charts reveal, the United Nation's Durban climate conference claims that human CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented, unequivocal and accelerating warming (ie. climate change) are nothing more than fabricated, robust lies. The left most chart plots actual global temperatures (HadCRUT and GISS) versus the predicted outcomes of one of the preeminent climate models. (click on each image to enlarge)
The middle chart plots global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels over the most recent 15 years ending October 2011. The chart on the right is same data plotted but for the 17-year span ending October 2011 (some Climategate scientists insist an extra 2 years makes all the difference when speaking of global warming). The polynomial fitted curves on these two charts indicate that global warming is becoming cooling, and at most, global warming is projected to be less than 1 degree by 2100.
And, as these charts reveal, clearly the IPCC's favored climate models are significantly wrong by orders of magnitude that smack of total incompetence. The UN's anti-scientific claims of global warming, repeated by political hacks like of Al Gore, Obama and Jon Huntsman, are meritless lies designed to push the agenda of global governance favored by the elites, the wealthy and the corporate special interests.
The lies that perpetuate the global warming and climate change hysteria exhibited by Durban conferees are both insidous and never-ending (note the most recent release of Climategate emails). These lies emanate from the bowels of the UN's IPCC and its senior climate "scientists" with no shame or remorse.
"OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, I’ve made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more. I just accepted that you can’t be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. It’s heady, treacherous stuff...I have been a victim of that same self-delusion myself. I understand the sweet seduction that arises from the conviction that your mission is of vital, crucial importance to the whole planet."
Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail...empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.
Read here. The world's science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN's IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.
The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC's "consensus" climate science:
"...with regard to the IPCC claim that "the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming," they note the following four problems:
(1) "it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,"
(2) "over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration," since "for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,"
(3) "there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature," and
(4) "the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere." [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]
Unfortunately, the establishmentapparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.
Read here. It is well documented that the IPCC's climate "experts" (software programmers) inserted a very high (unproven) CO2 climate sensitivity into the computer climate models. For PR propaganda purposes, the IPCC's climate simulations then foretold a future climate of potentially high temperatures due to the mysterious "tipping point."
As this typical climate model prediction chart reveals though, there is an obvious real-time problem with the IPCC programmers' assumption that the climate is highly sensitive to high levels of atmospheric CO2.
New peer-reviewed research has found that the IPCC's climate models are wrong, and the prediction of "accelerating" global warming due high climate sensitivity is wrong. The research confirms previousstudiesthat the projected future tipping point climate conditions were falsehoods. The actual science again proves global warming skeptics to be correct and, more robustly, that anti-science global warming alarmists, such as Chris Mooney, to be...well...er...pathological liars, exaggerators hysteria-loving alarmists who ignore climate reality.
Much to the major chagrin of climate alarmists everywhere, the Schmittner et al. team conclude that an approximate global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees is a much more likely outcome than the over-inflated 5.0 degrees publicized by the IPCC. This new finding makes the upcoming IPCC's the-world-is-melting convention in Durban, South Africa the penultimate farce.
"There is word circulating that a paper soon to appear in Science magazine concludes that the climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—likely (that is, with a 66% probability) lies in the range 1.7°C to 2.6°C, with a median value of 2.3°C....In the new paper, the authors find only “vanishing probabilities” for a climate sensitivity value greater than 3.2°C and that values greater than 6.0°C are “implausible.”...results join a growing number of papers published in recent years which, by employing investigations of the earth’s paleoclimate behavior (that is, how the earth’s temperature changes in the past when subject to changing climate forcings) have come to somewhat similar conclusions..." [Schmittner, A., et al., 2011: Science]
Temperature data source here. Carbon chart source here. (click on images to enlarge)
Climate reality keeps defying (mocking?) the IPCC's Climategate scientists. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts.
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of the world's ten worst accelerating CO2 emitters (below the red line) over the last two years. The countries increasing their CO2 emissions the most are: South Africa (home of Durban), Egypt, Brazil, Vietnam, Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India and China.
The NOAA/NCDC chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting November 1, 1996 and ending October 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending October was the 5th coldest October-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, October 2011 was the 33rd warmest since 1895 (October 1963 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.7°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending October 2011 (November 1, 2001 thru October, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 10.6°Fper century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: These linear temperature trends, as shown in the NOAA chart, are not predictions.
The above temperature reconstructions of satellite measurements are as of the end of October 2011. The white areas of each (land, sea and air) represent zero to insignificant temperature cooling/warming; yellow-orange-red colors represent warming; and the blueish areas represent cooling. (click on images to enlarge)
Clearly, what the world's best scientific-based technology tells us is that global warming is not "unequivocal" as most IPCC Climategate scientists robustly claim. In fact, as has been well documented by numerous studies, including BEST, significant warming has been basically absent for some 15 years, which has caused great befuddlement for the IPCC's climate "scientists."
At any point in time, at anyplace on the globe, there could be significant warming, while significant cooling is simultaneously happening at another locale, and both can be associated with vast regional areas of insignificant temperature change. When speaking of "unequivocal" global warming, there is no such thing.
One would think this needless to say, but it seems necessary: the IPCC's unequivocal climate liars would do all of science, the world, and the policymakers a huge service if the lies of "unequivocal," "accelerating," and "unprecedented" global warming were eliminated from the public discourse. These are propaganda terms that the objective empirical evidence robustly refutes.
If that were to happen, it would become increasingly difficult to accurately label scientists as "unequivocal" liars.
Read here. The Climategate scandal was the door opening that revealed a cadre of IPCC "scientists" conspiring to push their rendition of crop circle pseudoscience. A key component of that effort was the infamous "hockey-stick" that purported to show modern era temperatures to be unprecedented, and the climates of the Medieval Warming (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) to be minor blips of no significance. The IPCC's crop circle scientists also claimed that the MWP and LIA only existed in the small regional area of the north Atlantic/European geography. Subsequent studies and a mountain of empirical evidence refutes the IPCC pseudoscience.
A new peer-reviewed paper by Bertler et al., using the latest deuterium and temperature-isotope science, constructed temperatures going back 1,100 years. The new temperature dataset (see adjacent chart - click to enlarge) clearly shows the LIA in Antarctica to be massively cooler than modern temperatures; the dataset establishes that the modern warming is not "unprecedented" as the MWP is slightly warmer.
"The researchers obtained new deuterium (δD) data from the Ross Sea region of Antarctica that they acquired via analysis of the top fifty meters of a 180-meter-long ice core that had been extracted from the ice divide of Victoria Lower Glacier...work revealed three climatically-distinct time periods: the last 150 years of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, AD 1140 to 1287), the Little Ice Age (LIA, AD 1288 to 1807), and the Modern Era (ME, AD 1808 to 2000)...authors report that "the final 150 yrs of the MWP were ... about 0.35 °C warmer than the ME,"" [N.A.N. Bertler, P.A. Mayewski, L. Carter 2011: Earth and Planetary Science Letters]
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected." JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”. JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.” JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.” JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.
Last week the BEST research team released their findings in regards to land surface temperatures. The BEST data matched up very closely with the IPCC's gold standard, the HadCRUT land temps sub-dataset. In summary, the Berkeley study had a few key points, including:
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon
Since the BEST land surface results were so similar to the Hadley and CRU efforts, it is highly probable that the future BEST research will closely mimic the HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset as shown above in the chart on the left.
The latest HadCRUT dataset report (released today, 10/28/2011) through September 2011 reveals a very insignificant warming over the last 15 years, with zero correlation to increasing CO2 levels. The global HadCRUT linear trend if projected out means a total global temperature increase of +0.3 degrees by year 2100.
The chart on the right tracks the HadCRUT and GISS global temperature anomalies versus the NASA climate model prediction of global temperatures due to CO2 emissions. It is obvious, that the climate models are stupendously wrong in their estimate of the temperature impact of human CO2 emissions - if the models were correct, the HadCRUT and GISS temperature anomalies would resemble Hansen's 'green' curve. (Note: Climate predictions from the IPCC, its models and its experts are consistently wrong.)
Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, one can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions.
Read here. The climate alarmism bozos/bimbos brigade (Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Jeff Masters and etc.) has claimed that past severe winter conditions were the result of CO2-induced global warming. They did so without a sliver of scientific proof nor empirical evidence.
As the general public deduced, the brigade's claim that extreme winter conditions are being caused by "global warming" is a complete crock. And to the major chagrin of the likes of Kevin Trenberth, the climate modelers are now pointing their collective fingers at the real culprit - the sun. Losing the public and climate/solar science debate both - Ouch!
The team of Ineson et al. determined that a strong solar signal (positive or negative) will cause significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO change produces affects on the winter circulation patterns resulting in a dearth or abundance of Northern Hemisphere severe winter storms. Using climate models, they established a firm relationship between solar maximum/minimum and the change in the NAO.
"A research team...primarily made up of scientists from the U.K.’s Hadley Centre Met Office have identified a fairly strong solar signal in Northern Hemisphere winter circulation patterns which are manifest over Europe and the eastern United States. According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11-yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America...When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems. For instance, during the “snowmageddon” winter of 2009/2010, the NAO was at a near record low value..."Given our modelling result, these cold winters were probably exacerbated by the recent prolonged and anomalously low solar minimum. On decadal timescales the increase in the NAO from the 1960s to 1990s…may also be partly explained by the upwards trend in solar activity evident in the open solar-flux record…."" [Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray, Joanna D. Haigh 2011: Nature Geoscience]
Ben 'call-me-violent' Santer is a Climategate-style scientist whose ethical compass normally does not read true very well. Despite these less than desired personal characteristics as a scientist, Ben pursues climate science with great vigor, producing results that are very interesting, to say the least. His most recent research is a perfect example.
Benjie et al. has determined, through an unprecedented and a most robust, vigorous research effort, that one only needs 17 years to determine the human-CO2 impact on global temperatures.
Using this new Santer 17-year rule, the below atmospheric temperatures, per the NASA satellite, have increased modestly, suggesting a non-catastrophic increase of only 1.27 degrees by January 1, 2100.
And, using this new 17-year rule, the actual ocean temperatures have barely increased in the recent past. If this linear ocean temperature trend continued, a 0.74 degrees of less than robust warming can be expected by January 1, 2100.
And, using this new 17-year rule, the global temperatures have slightly increased since July 2004. Expanding on this global data, the underlying linear trend points to an insignificant, minor 0.85 degree increase in global temperatures by January 1, 2100 - certainly not the runaway, catastrophic global warming as predicted by the IPCC, and the likes of Santer.
These 3 charts provide some very valuable insights: one, recent past warming is realistically a non-issue; two, the future warming, based on known trends, is also likely to be a non-issue; and, three, increasing CO2 levels have little impact on global temperatures.
Regarding the last point, the 17-year r^2 statistical measurement for each of the above graphs indicates the extreme lameness of the CO2 and warming relationship. Using an Excel formula, the r^2 for CO2 and satellite temperatures is just 0.136; for CO2 and ocean temperatures it is 0.135; and, for global CO2 and global temperatures it is only 0.133.
These ludicrously low r^2 statistical measurements reveal an indisputable truth: CO2 levels probably have only little influence on global temperatures.
And, to add even more misery to global warming alarmists, such as Santer et al., the light blue Excel fitted (polynomial) curve for each chart suggests that temperature increases are definitely decelerating over the most recent 17-year span, in spite of the growing CO2 levels. In terms of visual interpretation, each chart does appear to point to a possible cooling phase in the near future.
Read here. Santer et al. 2011 research supposedly determines that at least 17 years of data is required to "measure" humans' impact on the climate. Not 15 years, not 16, not 18, not 19, not 20, but most assuredly, their cherry-picked 17-year span is the new gold-standard.
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Soooo, what does 17 years of HadCRUT global temperatures and CO2 levels look like versus the previous 'C3' 15-year data plot? Good question!
Using 17 years (204 months) worth of data through the end of July 2011, the plot on the left reveals that global warming since August 1994 is rather modest and non-existent since 1998.
The linear trend from this 17-year span indicates that global temperatures will be only 0.85°C higher by January 1, 2100. The light blue fitted curve suggests that global temperatures are actually moving towards a cooling period, not a warming. The grey fitted curve for CO2 keeps to a linear path ("business as usual") it has long had.
Let's identify what human CO2 impacts (past, present and future) have had on the climate per this 17-year period:
This 17-year gold-standard, blessed by the holier than thou team of Santer et cohorts, basically confirms that human CO2 emissions have had little, if any, impact on global temperatures.
This 17-year span confirms that future global warming will at most be modest.
This 17-year data confirms what skeptics have been saying for the last 17 years: runaway positive feedback is a fantasy and future global warming is unlikely to be catastrophic.
Since this outcome is probably not what Santer et al. expected from looking at the most recent 17-year span, maybe they ought to retract their study for a major revision. It would seem the 17-year span might need to be changed - damn that pesky empirical evidence!
And btw, 'Dr. B.S. Violence' should apologize to everyone for wasting taxpayer money on what 69% of Americans already know.
Note1 to readers: Go here for 17-year charts for ocean and atmosphere temps.
Note2 to readers: The linear trend that produces 0.85°C by 2100 is not a prediction. Actual global temperatures may be higher or lower. No one knows for sure. Most importantly, as this 17-year evidence indicates, current climate models are completely clueless as to future temperatures.
Read here. The climate models, based on the IPCC's favored CO2-based AGW theory, predict that oceans will warm as the atmosphere warms from human CO2 emissions. Indeed, human emissions have continued to increase over the past decade but the empirical evidence clearly shows ocean temperatures have not, with declining temperatures a recent phenomenon that may continue.
There is not a single IPCC climate prediction that foretold a decade long non-warming of Earth's oceans. In fact, the "consensus" models predicted the exact opposite. The evidence is robustly inconsistent with IPCC climate "experts" and their CO2-centric climate models.
NASA annual temperature anomaly data for oceans since 2001 through 2010.
Satellite monthly temperature anomalies for oceans since 2002 through August 2011.
NOAA's NOMAD ocean monthly temperature anomalies since 1981 through July 2011.
James Hansen, and his team at NASA, predicted significant global warming (the green curve - Scenario 'A') if human CO2 emissions continued their existing growth path. They have.
The actual warming evidence though, does not comport with NASA's climate models. Per both the GISS and HadCRUT temperature datasets, global warming (black and red curves) are at, or below, the predicted values if CO2 emissions growth had been eliminated (the aqua curve - Scenario 'C'). That has not happened, based on the evidence through July, 2011.
Read here and here. There is ampleempirical evidence that the feared CO2-caused global warming predicted by the IPCC and climate "experts" has been dramatically fading over the last 15 years. And there is plenty of ongoing anecdotal evidence of global cooling in the past few years.
Add Wellington, New Zealand and Mt. Ranier, Washington to the anecdotal evidence list. And don't forget about Ireland's and Germany's cold summer.
Read here. Droughts are a frequent visitor to the southwest U.S. and Mexico regions. The current drought that this area is experiencing is bad but in no way is it as extreme as the droughts that took place during the Medieval era.
As the chart reveals, both the Medieval and modern periods share a characteristic of high incoming solar irradiance. With the increase of incoming solar energy, the result is time spans of frequent and more intense droughts. These more extreme droughts occur naturally and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases, including CO2 emissions.
There are some scientists who predict we are entering a stage where 60-year droughts, like those during the Medieval Period, could occur but no one knows for sure. If solar irradiance falls (as it seems to be doing most recently), the modern drought cycle may end.
Woodhouse et al. published this 1,200 year perspective of Southwestern North America droughts:
"The medieval period was characterized by widespread and regionally severe, sustained drought in western North America. Proxy data documenting drought indicate centuries-long periods of increased aridity across the central and western U.S...The recent drought, thus far, pales hydrologically in comparison... Spatially, the mid-12th century drought covers all of the western U.S. and northern Mexico...whereas the 21st century drought has not impacted parts of the Pacific Northwest...The 21st century drought has lasted about a decade so far, whereas the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity...for two decades, 1140–1159 [AD]...In both instrumental and paleoclimatic records, periods of sustained drought in the Southwest have often been concurrent with elevated temperatures. The warmest such episode, in the mid-12th century, was more extensive and much more persistent than any modern drought experienced to date..." [Connie A. Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Glen M. MacDonald, Dave W. Stahle, Edward R. Cooke 2009: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) It's another case where "global" is not so global when it comes to warming. All scientists now concur with the empirical evidence that in the Southern Hemisphere, over the last 15 years, global warming has gone missing. Now a new analysis says it's been missing in New Zealand for the last 100 years.
Using robust, compliant statistical techniques, scientists analyzed the New Zealand temperature dataset. Their findings:
"When corrected with accepted scientific techniques, the official New Zealand Temperature Record (NZTR) shows that there has been no measurable change in mean temperatures during 1909-2009...“This study generally follows in the footsteps of NIWA’s NZTR Review, released last December, except in one vital aspect” said Coalition chairman, Barry Brill, “The difference is that we have scrupulously followed the statistical techniques described in the scientific literature, while NIWA did not.”...The historical data shows a warming rate of 0.29°C per century, while the corrected figure is 0.26°C per century. But both amounts are within the margins of error, and are effectively zero."
Read here. As the dotted trend line indicates on this German temperature chart, "global warming" is not so happening in Germany. The same is likely true for a number of nearby central European states.
And, to add to the AGW-alarmist scientists misery, and as most 'C3' readers are aware, "global warming" in the U.S. has actually been global cooling over the last 15 years, according to NOAA temperature datasets.
The fact that majors areas of the globe are cooling explains why warming has been trivial over the last 15 years, across the world. The lack of massive warming is a significant invalidation of the AGW hypothesis and runs counter to every major climate model based on the assumption that the climate in incredibly sensitive to human CO2 emissions.
Despite the hundreds of billions spent on these models and associated taxpayer expenditures on AGW research, the evidence is now conclusive that they are unable to predict accurately.
The HadCRUT monthly anomalies were just updated through June 2011. Below are two relevant charts: one indicating the failure of NASA's climate model predictions; and, the other chart revealing the lack of global warming.
Read here, here, here, here and here. A clown-like PNAS peer-reviewed study by a group of green professors, none of whom are climate or atmospheric scientists (Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock) purports to explain how the IPCC's climate scientists and their climate models got it sooo wrong in regards to the well documented lack of global warming since 1998.
Their theory, widely reported by both an uncritical mainstream media and compliant, gullible bloggers & pundits, is that China's growing coal use emitted the needed sulfur emissions to stop global warming during the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's a clownish theory based on, at best, flimsy, pretend climate science and minimal actual empirical evidence.
1. Unlike annual compiled CO2 emissions and CO2 monthly atmospheric levels, recent sulfur emissions and SO2 atmospheric aerosol levels are guesstimates. This study is based on guesstimates, which are based on tenuous assumptions, which are likely not a reflection empirical reality.
2. It is estimated by these authors that coal sulfates increased around 2004, well after the global non-warming phase had already started.
3. Unlike climate-impacting volcano sulfate aerosol ejections that travel multiple kilometers into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), sulfate emissions (aerosol particles) from coal remain in the lower atmosphere and are resident only for a short time as they are quickly washed out of the air by precipitation ("acid rain").
4. Coal sulfate emissions are not well mixed in the atmosphere, which means they are not well distributed around the globe meaning their global impact on temperatures is severely limited.
5. A previous NASA satellite measurement analysis published by atmospheric experts found no increase in global aerosol optical depth over the years 2000 through 2006.
6. Despite China's large increase in coal burning, aggregate global sulfate emissions have dramatically decreased because worldwide coal plants are burning coal with less sulfur and newer smokestack (flue) scrubber technology.
7. The empirically measured impact of coals' SO2 on temperatures is not settled, with science research suggesting that sulfur aerosols in the lower atmosphere are actually a cause of warming, not cooling.
8. Natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations are significantly better explanations of the non-global warming over the 1998-2008 period than the lame, meritless, speculative sulfur emissions hypothesis.
9. In another NASA study, it was found that aerosol particulates in the atmosphere have declined since the 1990's.
(click on any image to enlarge)
Estimated human SO2 emissions, generally declining with estimated slight increase around 2005-2005 (source for left, right):
Aggregate coal SO2 emissions adjusted for use of cleaner coal and use of improved scrubber tecnhology, declining overall, everywhere (source):
Aerosol (including SO2 particulates) optical depth comparisons from satellite measurements for years 2001, 2004, and 2008. Little change over several years of Kaufmann et al. study, and satellite data reveals aerosols to be of a local/regional concern, not a global issue (source):
Study's authors own graphical representation of their estimate of SO2 warming/cooling impact (purple curve) on global temperatures (blue curve). Even their own assessment would indicate little, if any, impact from human sulfur emissions during span of 1998 to 2008 (source).
The above graph has all curves removed except for global temperatures and sulfur forcing. Below, the SOI (index of the Southern Oscillation) curve (green) is added back to the study's original graph.
Focusing on the blue box representing the period analyzed by the study, one quickly sees that both the SOI and global temps are highly variable. Looking closer, there is a relationship evident between the SOI and temperatures - when the SOI heads in one direction, the global temps head in the opposite direction a few months later.
Apparently, the authors of this study chose to ignore Gaia's Southern Oscillation (and/or other major ocean/atmosphere oscillations) despite its obvious influence on cooling global temps from 1998 to 2008. Instead they focus on the purple curve (sulfur emissions forcing) that just as obvious had a fraction of Gaia's impact on temperatures.
As Judith Curry (a renowned climate scientist) states:
"I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance...the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors."
Read here and here. Well..okay...the quote in this post's title is what Phil Jones should have really said (he didn't). Instead, he recently proclaimed that global warming finally has become "statistically significant" since 1995.
Jones was speaking of the 15 years starting in 1996 and ending in 2010. Although the warming has become "statistically significant" in his opinion (not others), the actual level of warming is literally immaterial when put into the context of catastrophic warming (from 5 to 10 degrees Celsius by 2100) pushed by government payroll scientists enthralled (enriched?) with alarmism.
To better understand the level of immaterial warming that has happened, look at the chart above (adjacent). The red curve is a plot of monthly HadCRUT anomalies for the 15 years (180 months) ending May 2011. The light blue curve is a 2nd order curve fit of the anomalies. The black dots represent monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and gray curve the 2nd order fitting to those CO2 levels. (charts and stats done in Excel)
First, note how the blue curve turns south, indicating a direction of cooling for the HadCRUT global temps that many scientists believe will continue. The straight linear trend associated with the latest 15 years implies a warming of a tiny +0.53 degrees by January 1, 2100. In contrast, the 15-year period ending May,1996 had a linear trend that translates into an increase of +1.02 degrees by end of century, if that trend still existed - it doesn't. Did we say cooling yet?
Second, does that red curve look in the least like the accelerating, unequivocal and unprecedented global warming being claimed as happening by the UN's IPCC "elite" scientists? Nope, me neither.
Next, note the behavior of Phil Jones' (and the IPCC climate models') favorite climate forcing over the last 15 years. It is more than obvious that CO2 levels continue their long, relentless march upward, as they have done ever since WWII. And obviously, the chart clearly shows the two trends (CO2 and HadCRUT temps) diverging.
Visually, there appears to be no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures depicted in the chart. And in fact, the R2 statistic for the two comes in at an incredibly low +0.04 - in essence, it appears there is no valid relationship between CO2 and global temps. Of course, Phil Jones and the IPCC deny this, but the actual on-the-ground facts are undeniable: human CO2 emissions appear to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, well below the speculative predictions of the IPCC and its climate models.
One final note about global warming and the recent 2011 severe weather incidents. As the HadCRUT chart depicts, global temperatures started a major decline after March 2010. As temperatures categorically crashed, the world suffered from more cold, more snow, more tornadoes, more rain, more flooding and etc. And what do the lamestream media, Hollywood celebrities, left/liberal politicians and alarmist scientists blame? Why, of course, global warming and human CO2 emissions. Go figure.
Sooo, going back to the title of this post, Phil Jones would have been more accurate and truthful if he had said: "Although statistically significant, global warming over the last 15 Years has been rather insignificant, definitely immaterial, likely irrelevant, and basically inconsistent with the climate models." That sounds like it emanated from an honest, objective scientist, no?
BTW, below are charts for other major temperature datasets for the last 15 years ending May 2011. Regardless of the dataset, global temperatures are in a slight cooling phase presently and they could continue to go down, and then again, they may not. That's what natural climate change is about. (click on all images to enlarge)
Read here. What are the symptoms of a "consensus" crumbling? In a startling admission, which appears to be a subtle stab-in-the-back of NASA's Hansen's approach, an EU scientist said the following:
“To date, when trying to explain tropical climate variations, we have always looked upwards, specifically to the atmosphere. Our new data, for the first time, direct our attention towards the depths of the ocean, thereby opening new perspectives for our scientific approach,”
Over the past few decades climate research has been stuck-on-stupid with the James Hansen's CO2 hypothesis, and his CO2 driven climate models, that force every climate variation through the myopic vision of the CO2 ideology.
Unfortunately for climate science and policymakers, the trace gas CO2 has about squat to do with climate variation, which galactic sums of research money and effort have been wasted on. It now seems the atmospheric CO2-cult is being abandoned with scientists finally seeking answers from both the oceans and solar-related activity.
"Climate variability in the tropical Atlantic Ocean is determined by large-scale ocean–atmosphere interactions, which particularly affect deep atmospheric convection over the ocean and surrounding continents. Apart from influences from the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Atlantic variability is thought to be dominated by two distinct ocean–atmosphere coupled modes of variability that are characterized by meridional, and zonal, sea-surface-temperature gradients and are mainly active on decadal and interannual timescales...we report evidence that the intrinsic ocean dynamics of the deep equatorial Atlantic can also affect sea surface temperature, wind and rainfall in the tropical Atlantic region and constitutes a 4.5-yr climate cycle." [Peter Brandt, Andreas Funk, Verena Hormann, Marcus Dengler, Richard J. Greatbatch, John M. Toole 2011: Nature]
Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists have long had marching orders from their political masters to prove that human CO2 emissions are the principal cause of global warming. This politically correct agenda thus requires that IPCC scientists diminish or ignore other climate influencers, including solar.
Unfortunately for the IPCC, there still exist thousands of scientists who conduct objective climate research to determine the real causes of climate change, in spite of political agendas.
Recently, Chinese scientists reconstructed past temperatures and determined that swings in temperature averages are a result of multiple, natural oscillations that are driven by solar radiation variability. Their research does not implicate CO2 as a major contributing factor.
"In an attempt to gain that understanding, Qian and Lu began with the reconstructed global-mean temperature anomaly history of Mann et al. (2008), combined with HadCRUT3 data for 1000-2008, relative to 1961-1990...they used a wavelet transform procedure to identify four oscillations in the millennial temperature time series...Next, they similarly examined a reconstructed 400-year solar radiation series based on 10Be data...determined that "the ~21-year, ~115-year and ~200-year periodic oscillations in global-mean temperature are forced by and lag behind solar radiation variability," and they report that the "relative warm spells in the 1940s and the beginning of the 21st century resulted from overlapping of warm phases in the ~21-year and other oscillations," noting that "between 1994 and 2002 all four periodic oscillations reached their peaks and resulted in a uniquely warm decadal period during the last 1000 years,"...As for the future, they predict that "global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s."" [WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu 2010: Chinese Science Bulletin]
Read here and here. It is well established climate models are unable to accurately predict the dirunal temperature range. This failure is directly related to climate models' lousy ability at predicting daily minimum temperatures; in addition, a significant portion of the modern global warming record used as inputs to IPCC climate models, is due to higher nighttime temperatures (minimum). (click on image to enlarge; image source)
This prediction failure has been due to the climate models assuming that minimum temperatures (nighttime temps) are driven by atmospheric CO2 levels, resulting in predicted minimum temperatures that are too high. According to McNider et al., the minimum temperatures are more a fucntion of heat redistribution during evening hours versus additional nighttime heat being added by greenhouse gases. Compounding this problem, climate models cannot simulate the heat redistribution physics affecting nighttime temperatures.
The authors conclude that minimum temperatures should no longer be used as a proxy for global atmospheric warming. This implies that it is likely global warming attributed to CO2 levels has been signficantly overstated.
"One of the most significant signals in the thermometer-observed temperature record since 1900 is the decrease in the diurnal temperature range over land, largely due to warming of the minimum temperatures...Climate models have in general not replicated the change in diurnal temperature range well. Here we would like to try to distinguish between warming in the nocturnal boundary layer due to a redistribution of heat and warming due to the accumulation of heat...It is likely that the observed warming in minimum temperature, whether caused by additional greenhouse forcing or land use changes or other land surface dynamics, is reflecting a redistribution of heat by turbulence-not an accumulation of heat. Because minimum temperatures in the stable boundary layer are not very robust measures of the heat content in the deep atmosphere and climate models do not predict minimum temperatures well, minimum temperatures should not be used as a surrogate for measures of deep atmosphere global warming.” [R.T. McNider, J.R. Christy and A. Biazar 2011: Earth and Environmental Science]
Read here and here. So far, 2011 has produced a number of disastrous events including: extreme cold and snow, earthquakes, tsunamis, radiation releases, floods, fires, rainstorms and tornadoes. Recently, this has led the IPCC's big-guns, the ones who provided us with Climategate and put climate science into such deep disrepute, to opine that human CO2 and global warming are to blame for these severe weather events and other 2011 calamities.
In the realm of nature and Earth's climate though, a lot of really bad stuff happens and humans are not the cause of it. Take 1878/1879 for example - below are samples of what the newspapers and etc. reported those years. Be thankful it's not the 1878/1879 period, or many other really bad years.
1878: Southern England Suffers Rare Tornado, Followed By Snow
1878: Winter In England Is 5.4 Degrees Colder Than Average
1878: Devastating Hurricane Strikes Tahiti
1878: Terrible Australian Drought Followed By Disastrous Floods
1878: Ceylon Hit By Multiple Floods Causing Great Property Damage
1878: Indian Ocean Cyclone Wipes Bourbon Island Clean
1878: Immense Floods Overwhelm Sacramento, California Region
1878: Great Floods In England's Thames Valley
1878: Hundreds Lost At Sea During Bay of Biscay, Spain Hurricane
1878: Wisconsin Tornado Hits Multiple Rural Towns, 30 People Killed
1878: France Experiences Large Floods
1878: Three Year Massive Drought & Famine Ends In India
1878: Officially announced that 7,000,000 persons have died of “famine in China.”
1878: Brooklyn, NY Has Malaria Outbreak
1878: Hurricane & Two Waterspouts Bash Canton, China
1878: Eleven Days of Extreme Hot Temperatures Torch America's Midwest
1878: Southern Morocco Droughts Turns Populace Into "Living Skeletons"
1878: Hailstorm In Austria Wrecks Crops, Hailstones Unusually Large
1878: Severe Thunderstorms & Hailstorms Thrash Switzerland - Fires and Floods Result
1878: Prolonged Drought In South Africa Threatens Disastrous Famine
1878: Terrible Gale Strikes England's Coast, 400 Out of 500 Fishing Boats Lost
1879: 70 Million Chinese People Starving From “2 centuries of climatic change almost without a parallel”
1879: Account – Destructive Earthquakes Hit Japan Every Ten Years
1879: 165 MPH Winds Pummel North Carolina
1879: Half A Million Dead In Brazil From Drought, Starvation And Pestilence
Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth are individuals who will use any disaterous event, regardless of the science and empirical evidence, to bolster the fortunes of their failed AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately for these IPCC "scientists", history is replete with years of disasterous events prior to large human CO2 emissions. And every year, more and more of the global public recognizes that the truth is different than what Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth claim.
Read here, here and here. The alarmist AGW hypothesis calls for an increase of atmospheric CO2 to increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the surface causing increased water evaporation; that will then increase the amount of atmospheric water vapor (the largest greenhouse gas); that will then increase atmospheric warming; that will then warm the Earth's surface; and, etc., in a repeat-the-above scenario of a never-ending positive feedback loop finally leading to the mythical, catastrophic climate tipping points.
What's reality, though?
Ouch....the empirical evidence can be so brutal and unkind to the AGW doomsday-religion and fanatical believers.
From two different sources (click on each image for source), the empirical evidence is clear that atmospheric water vapor component is not increasing with an upward trend as predicted by IPCC's climate models and their Climategate scientists. At best, water vapor content has remained constant with the distinct possibility it has trended down over recent years.
Again, the IPCC's summary reports call for catastrophic calamities/disasters due to a hypothesis that relies on a hypothetical positive water vapor feedback mechanism that does not exist as required and predicted.
Read here. While IPCC-biased climate researchers entirely focus efforts on incredibly lame climate models and the AGW CO2-centric hypothesis, other researchers across the globe are conducting groundbreaking research finding new, important impacts on the climate. A new peer-reviewed study on sugarcane by Loarie et al. is an example of such.
Specifically, the researchers document how a single land-use change can significantly impact local/regional temperatures, overwhelming the weak CO2-induced global warming impact.
"Here we quantify the direct climate effects of sugar-cane expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado, on the basis of maps of recent sugar-cane expansion and natural-vegetation clearance combined with remotely sensed temperature, albedo and evapotranspiration over a 1.9 million km2 area. On a regional basis for clear-sky daytime conditions, conversion of natural vegetation to a crop/pasture mosaic warms the cerrado by an average of 1.55°C, but subsequent conversion of that mosaic to sugar cane cools the region by an average of 0.93°C (1.67°F), resulting in a mean net increase of 0.6 °C. Our results indicate that expanding sugar cane into existing crop and pasture land has a direct local cooling effect that reinforces the indirect climate benefits of this land-use option." [Scott R. Loarie, David B. Lobell, Gregory P. Asner, Qiaozhen Mu & Christopher B. Field 2011: Nature Climate Change]
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting April 1, 1997 and ending March 31, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending March 2011 was the 6th coldest March-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, March 2011 was 79th coldest March in the past 117 years.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 2.9°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending March 2011, the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 12.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records. (click on image to enlarge)
At some point, U.S. continental warming will resume, but the extended decade-long plus global cooling trend persists, contradicting the experts. None of the IPCC climate models, nor "consensus" experts predicted this cooling trend for the continental U.S.
As the monthly empirical evidence keeps pouring in, the AGW hypothesis and climate model simulations that portray atmospheric CO2 levels being the principal driving force behind global temperature change looks weaker and weaker. A growing chorus of scientists worldwide are now saying that the idea that global warming is caused by 'CO2 vapours' is a quaint, 1800's European hypothesis, but severely lacking in any robust, modern empirical evidence.
While the CO2-vapours based AGW hypothesis crumbles in the face of actual climate data, other scientific explanations regarding global temperature change are looking stronger and stronger. One such hypothesis is that the Southern Oscillation (SO) accounts for some 80% of global temperature variance.
The strength of that explanation appears exceptional when viewing the HadCRUT global temperature change over the last 15 years in comparison to the the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), in the chart immediately below. The evidence suggests a strong statistical relationship for the SO being the primary driver of temperatures and potential climate change.
In comparison, the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures is an obvious weak one, almost statistically non-existent, as the chart below depicts.
Scientists analyzing the below data are now concluding that although CO2 has some impact on temperatures, this incredibly weak statistical evidence is driving their research towards better, more complete explanations.
Read here. Map source here. (click on images to enlarge)
There are multiple factors that affect both regional and global temperatures, but the most important source of long-term temperature change is solar activity. Using data from the Norwegian Sea and multiple solar proxies, the peer-reviewed research by Sejrup et al. confirms a robust and synchronous correlation between solar activity and temperatures.
Note: This research was conducted and completed without the use of magical "hockey stick" science and statistics, perfected by Penn State University personnel.
"...worked with two sediment cores they extracted from the seabed of the eastern Norwegian Sea, developing a 1000-year proxy temperature record "based on measurements of δ18O in Neogloboquadrina pachyderma, a planktonic foraminifer that calcifies at relatively shallow depths within the Atlantic waters of the eastern Norwegian Sea during late summer," which they compared with the temporal histories of various proxies of concomitant solar activity.....This work revealed, as the seven scientists describe it, that "the lowest isotope values (highest temperatures) of the last millennium are seen ~1100-1300 A.D., during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, and again after ~1950 A.D." In between these two warm intervals, of course, were the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age, when oscillatory thermal minima occurred at the times of the Dalton, Maunder, Sporer and Wolf solar minima, such that the δ18O proxy record of near-surface water temperature was found to be "robustly and near-synchronously correlated with various proxies of solar variability spanning the last millennium," with decade- to century-scale temperature variability of 1 to 2°C magnitude." [Sejrup, H. P., S. J. Lehman, H. Haflidason, D. Noone, R. Muscheler, I. M. Berstad, and J. T. Andrews 2010: J. Geophys. Res]
In a previous post, we examined the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, which is the oldest instrumental temperature data record, and found that temperatures had not significantly warmed over the last 15 years. In this post, we'll examine whether increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have caused "unprecedented" temperature changes, as claimed by global warming alarmists and your typical leftist/liberal/progressive Democrat politician, bureaucrat and, of course, taxpayer funded (enriched) climate scientist. (click on images to enlarge)
The above chart plots single year changes in CET temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. The data clearly shows that temperatures have always been highly variable, and both recent temperature changes up and down are not "unprecedented." The lack of unprecedented modern temperature change is additionally exposed by the blue curve, a 10-year average of annual temperature changes. And, it's visually obvious that past annual temperature changes were more extreme prior to the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
The second chart depicts a rolling 15-year temperature change. Again, the graphed data reveals modern 15-year period temperature changes not to be "unprecedented" and CO2 levels to be basically irrelevant. Indeed, temperature changes just seem happen over 15-year spans, naturally.
What about rolling 30-year "unprecedented" modern temperature changes? The above third chart finds it's the 'same old, same old' - past temperature changes have been more significant than modern temp changes and CO2 levels are not a major factor.
Finally, this last chart plots 60-year temperature changes. Certainly, after 60 years of increasing human CO2 emissions, the temperature record has to show "unprecedented" warming swings that provide a clear signal that modern climate change is highly unusual. Unfortunately for all alarmists and liberal/leftists, the real data reveals the bogosity of their claims - they've been flat out wrong per the world's best-of-breed and oldest instrumental temperature record.
Top Ten 1-Yr. temperature increase changes (year ending): 1741, 1846, 1893, 1880, 1666, 1743, 1831, 1868, 1800, 1997
Top Ten 15-Yr. temperature increase changes (year ending): 1831, 1710, 1868, 1894, 1755, 1779, 1707, 1706, 1828, 1781
Top Ten 30-Yr. temperature increase changes (year ending): 1868, 1846, 1949, 1921, 1727, 1728, 1781, 1770, 1722, 1724
Top Ten 60-Yr. temperature increase changes (year ending): 1741, 1846, 1893, 1880, 1743, 1831, 1868, 1800, 1997, 1815
Note: Each "Top Ten" are listed from largest to smallest temperature increase.
Read here. The Peng et al. peer-reviewed study analyzed the arid and semi-arid areas of western China and found that winter snow depth has increased over the last 30 years. This increased moisture has reduced soil erosion, increased overall vegetation levels and reduced the frequency of sandstorms.
These beneficial climate changes took place during the modern global warming, which is another example of global warming producing positive resluts, opposite of the catastrophic predicted outcomes pushed by global warming alarmists.
"The five researchers report that "over the past three decades, winter snow depth overall increased in northern China, particularly in the most arid and semiarid regions of western China where desert and grassland are mainly distributed," and they say that in those specific areas there were positive correlations between mean winter snow depth and spring NDVI [Normalized Difference Vegetation Index] data.....In discussing the implications of their findings, Peng et al. write that the "increase in vegetation coverage in arid and semiarid regions of China, possibly driven by winter snow, will likely restore soil and enhance its antiwind-erosion ability, reducing the possibility of released dust and mitigating sand-dust storms," while noting that the frequency of sand-dust storms has indeed "declined in China since the early 1980s." [Peng, S., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Fang, J. and Wang, X. 2010: Global Change Biology 16: 3004-3013]
Read here. French scientists, J.-L. Le Mouël et al., determine that solar activity has major impact on temperatures across the world. Both major global warming and global cooling periods can be attributed to associated solar activity.
"We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature." [Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blanter, Mikhail Shnirman 2008; C.R. Geoscience, 340: 421-430]
Read here. The number of major volcanic eruptions has diminished over the last two decades, resulting in a significantly cleaner stratosphere that allows more solar energy to strike the earth's surface. The net result: at least 50% of modern "global warming" is due to less volcanic activity.
"Since 1997, when Pinatubo’s aerosol settled out, the stratosphere has been exceptionally clear.....Half or more of the warming since 1995 may due to the lack of large volcanic eruptions.....That's about 0.13°C.....The remaining climate change is presumably caused by other forces, such as solar variability, El Nino, Atlantic AMO warming in 1995, lower Albedo and maybe even a little greenhouse gas."
Read here. James Hansen, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists base frightening climate calamities (20 to 80-foot sea level increases) on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause an "amplified" increase in polar temperatures. Actual scientific researchers decided to investigate the validity of the polar-amplification hypothesis.
The nine researchers [White et al. 2010] examined all the evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced "polar-amplification" is to be found.
"In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" anthropogenic-induced warming of the past several decades, White et al. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."" [White, J.W.C., Alley,R.B., Brigham-Grette, J., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Jennings, A.E., Johnsen, S.J., Miller, G.H., Nerem, R.S. and Polyak, L. 2010.]
Read here and here. IPCC climate models and those of major countries are designed to fail with significant predictability. Why?
Besides all climate models being purposefully designed to focus on human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming, none of the climate models are able to simulate cloud impact and cloud coverage correctly (or even with a modicum of accuracy). Clouds are beyond even the most powerful computers and virtual simulations, which means the climate models will always produce incorrect results moving forward. As a prominent scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research recently stated:
"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future."
Despite this significant model shortcoming affecting all climate models, more empirical evidence is being accumulated by both satellites and climate experts that indicate clouds have a much greater impact on temperatures than CO2 levels in the atmosphere than previously understood. As the graph below indicates, global temperatures appear to be driven by sunlight reaching the earth's surface, as regulated by cloud coverage, not by CO2 increases.
Climate experts are now concluding that research must focus on clouds, with many scientists considering the possibility that a 1% or less change in cloud coverage could explain most of the past changes in global temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: The scaled red NCDC monthly global temperature anomaly curve and the monthly cumulative CO2 increase are superimposed on the satellite reflected sunlight chart. The original satellite chart was flipped vertically so that the maximum sunlight striking the surface measurement would be at the top.
Not too long ago, California was a cornucopia of freedom and prosperity, envied by the entire world, as well as many Americans. Over the last 20 years though, big government loving politicians and bureaucrats have so trashed the state's economy that it has become a banana republic, teetering on financial collapse - a golden dream turned into a nightmare, so-to-speak.
The rapid California decline can be directly traced to the state's progressives/liberals/leftists embracing any issue that calls for greater government regulation, control and taxation. Global warming is such an issue and because of big government spenders and regulators, it promises to make life even more miserable for individual taxpayers and for the small and medium-sized businesses.
The literal craziness of California's global warming fears has resulted in the anti-prosperity legislation known as AB32, and anti-choice regulations, such as banning black paint for new cars. For those paying attention, it is more than obvious that government control and tax revenue sources are the motivations driving the "global warming" laws and rules, not actual California warming or saving the world.
(click on images to enlarge) The graph on the left depicts the total cumulative global emissions (about 1.1 trillion tons) from 1946-2009, and the average California annual temperature over the last two decades. Clearly, California does not have a "global warming" problem caused by humanity's large increase in CO2 emissions. In addition, "global" warming is actually regional warming, and the U.S. is a major region that is not warming at all.
IPCC and climate alarmist scientists inform us that every human CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years, incessantly causing temperatures to increase. Thus, per the IPCC scientists, per the AGW theory and per the global temperature data (NCDC global temperature data), the cumulative 1.1 trillions tons of CO2 has caused an actual global temperature increase of about 0.44 degrees Celsius since 1945. That translates into an increase of 0.0000000000004 degree per ton of human CO2. With a little more arithmetic, we can then calculate what will happen to global temperatures if all 400 million tons of annual California CO2 were reduced to zero - the answer is nada, zilch, zero and nothing. The chart on the right reveals the impact of the California CO2 reductions on global temperatures.
(For more information about the trivial impact of CO2 reductions on global temperatures, go here and here for more information.)
So, the California politicians and bureaucrats are fighting the imaginary global warming problem, which does not exist for California, the U.S., nor many large regions of the globe. For the citizens of California, fighting this and other imaginary problems for the sake of empowering and enriching the state's elites has had terrible consequences, as documented below.
Simply put, California's big government, big green and big bureaucrat elites have single-handedly changed California from the envy of the world to a laughingstock. Not only is unemployment in California terrible - it has gotten so bad that even '60 Minutes' is claiming that California unemployment exceeds 20% - California also has the 2nd highest home foreclosure rate and easily the worst credit rating in the nation. Did we say 'banana republic'?
Despite the gross incompetence of California's ruling class, they still enjoy the support of the wealthy and privileged. As a result, many of the world's largestCO2spewers are in favor of the economy destroying AB32 - they know full well that they themselves will be able to avoid CO2-spewing restrictions because they are favored by the existing left/liberal big government ruling class.
Fortunately, Californians have the opportunity to seize control from the incompetent elites by voting for the suspension of the "global warming" AB32 regulations and voting out the big government politicians who have facilitated the total economic disaster that California is headed for.
Read here. Fortunately for the world, the IPCC and Climategate science alarmists have relied exclusively on climate models based on the concept that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The newest peer-reviewed study finds that hypothesis to be wrong. At most, CO2 greenhouse gases might be only 60% of global warming, per this latest research. [Ed: The original ResilientEarth scientist-author reviewed his own intepretation of this new study and determined that the more accurate figure is '60%', not '35%'. We changed this post's title to reflect his correction.]
As peer-reviewed research keeps discovering, we witness the impact of human CO2 on warming being methodically reduced. And, as the science improves, other major climate forcings are being identified as significant contributors to recent modern warming, which are yet to be incorporated into IPCC climate models.
Sooo, instead of the world wasting trillions of economic activity on the fading, false fear of climate calamities due to human CO2, the world can instead invest in policies promoting delivery of electricity to those billions without, plus raise billions from the scourge of poverty. Although vast amounts of dollars have been wasted on incorrect climate science and climate models, the good news is that monies proposed for the "Cold War" on CO2 can be re-directed to productive outcomes.
"So great is the uncertainty that the IPCC's future climate predictions, which are all based on biased assumptions about climate sensitivity, are most certainly untrustworthy. As stated in the article: "It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.".....Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clear—CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide."
Back in February, Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, did an interview with the BBC. Out of that interview came some very significant revelations that boarded on AGW heresy, including:
"neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
There was no significant warming
from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global
temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
The IPCC models may have
overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases,
underestimated natural variability, or both.
This also suggests that there is a
systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models
just from this factor alone.
The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
There is a tendency in the IPCC
reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s)
most likely to be read by policy makers."
Now, several months later, Jones has published a paper with others that concludes the 1970's land surface cooling was due to cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, Jones and company are now recognizing that natural, large-scale factors are forcing global changes in temperatures besides the IPCC favored trace gas CO2 from human emissions.
Update: More fascinating information, including this chart immediately below, that seemingly supports the ocean oscillation and land temperature relationship of the Jone's paper.
And apparently, Jones and company are not claiming that human CO2 is the cause of the ocean oscillations that are associated with sea temperature changes in the first place. Gee, I wonder why.....could it be that CO2 levels have zero influence on ocean cycles/oscillations as the below charts suggest? Or, phrased another way, could the actual CO2 level at a given time be the cause of the given peak/valley of an ocean oscillation at that same point in time?
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (like other ocean oscillations) is a climate pattern with a mode of variability, which seems to naturally occur regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"A climate pattern may come in the form of a regular cycle, like the diurnal cycle or the seasonal cycle; a quasi periodic event, like El Niño; or a highly irregular event, such as a volcanic winter.....A mode of variability is a climate pattern with identifiable characteristics, specific regional effects, and often oscillatory behavior.....the mode of variability with the greatest effect on climates worldwide is the seasonal cycle, followed by El Niño-Southern Oscillation, followed by thermohaline circulation."
Other well-known modes of variability include: The Antarctic oscillation; The Arctic oscillation; The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation; The Indian Ocean Dipole; The Madden–Julian oscillation; The North Atlantic oscillation; The Pacific decadal oscillation; The Pacific-North American teleconnection pattern; The Quasi-biennial oscillation.
Of course, Jones is well aware that climate patterns, like ENSO, have existed for thousands of years, well before any traces of industrial CO2 entered the atmosphere. Again, these climate patterns with large variability are happening regardless of CO2 levels. (click on images to enlarge)
The above charts have the historical atmospheric CO2 levels (red curve) simply super-imposed on the various oscillations. For more information on natural ocean oscillations, go here, here and here.
[Note: Other prominent deniers of natural factors being principal agents in climate change are also starting to see the light.]