The major proponents of climate doomsday alarmism claim that the growth of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is causing a rapid growth of dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels.
But does the scientific empirical evidence support that claim?
In climate reality, not only is it a false claim, it is at best anti-science propaganda.
This chart plots the percent growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions versus the percent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1966. As can be observed, the emissions growth is on a strong declining trend whereas the atmospheric CO2 continues on its modestly increasing growth trend.
The R2 between the two depicted annual growth rate plots is an embarrassingly low 0.02 (zero comes to mind for some reason), which reflects an overall large negative trend of CO2 emissions percentage growth versus a small positive percentage growth trend for atmospheric CO2.
Question: If actual CO2 emission growth is a weak causal factor in atmospheric CO2 growth, then how exactly can it be a strong cause of dangerous "accelerating" growth of global warming, per the dogmatic AGW hypothesis?
Oh, that's right, global warming is not accelerating.
Note: Source of CO2 annual CO2 emissions tonnes and source of CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels. Growth percent calculations and chart plots accomplished using Excel. Update: Annual growth percents plotted are calculated using prior year measurement as numerator and following year measurement as denominator. Another update: typo on chart corrected - thank you, Tom Nelson.
According to the IPCC, GHG's are well beyond the business-as-usual scenario that James Hansen and NASA identified as leading to global warming "hell" ... big problem with that though.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This IPCC AR5 SPM chart reveals some very interesting information about greenhouse gases. The chart plots GHG group emissions over the period from 1970-2010. (chart source)
The adjacent 'C3' chart, re-plots the same information using a simple column representation, plus depicting the fitted trend growth for each GHG group's emissions.
Some key points:
1. From 1970 to 2000, total GHG emissions grew by 1.3% per year.
2. Over the period of 2000-2010, that growth increased to 2.2% per year - a robust 70% growth in the annual rate.
3. Total GHG emissions jumped significantly from 2000-2010, to a historical record, with the combined CO2 emission groups being the principal contributors.
5. Methane emissions essentially stalled over 20 years but then started to increase over the last period.
6.Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride), which are supposed to be reduced under the terms of the Kyoto protocol, have increased by 8x since 1970 but still only represent less than one-tenth of one percent of all GHG emissions.
7. Although the growth rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels slowed a bit from 1980 to 1990, it's growth started accelerating during the 90's.
8. The combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Clearly, and unequivocally, the GHG emissions have not only sustained the business-as-usual (BAU) growth path that so concerns prominent advocates of climate alarmism, but over the last 10 year period the 'BAU' scenario levels for the demonized CO2 have jumped significantly (see top 3 charts on this page)
A little history: The BAU greenhouse gas emissions path was made famous by NASA's James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony introduced the public to the dangerous and accelerating global warming potential of Scenario 'A'. This scenario was determined/computed to be a direct result of not reducing/restraining the GHGs emissions, especially fossil fuel CO2.
From a famous 1988 peer reviewed article by Hansen et al.:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
Switching from that history to the present, as the IPCC documents in the latest AR5 SPM (WGIII), we are living in the emission scenario of unrestrained growth - growth beyond the feared 1988 'BAU'. Hansen defined unrestrained BAU growth of GHGs as 1.5% per year, and now the IPCC reports it's growing at a 2.2% per annum rate.
In the opinion of climate alarmist advocates, this feared 'Beyond-BAU' growth means that radiative forcings (watts per square meter) will dramatically increase, resulting in out-of-control warming, multiple positive feedback loops and ever greater and more frequent climate/weather catastrophes.
And these alarmist opinions are due to the very costly and "sophisticated" IPCC/climate agencies computer crystal balls model simulations - dominated by said CO2 and other trace GHG emissions - that have proven to be such unreliable prediction tools. Recall that those climate model temperature prediction 'Ooopsies' are a major embarrassing problem plaguing the current reliance of climate science on unproven virtual simulations.
Just to add a little more context to the 'Beyond-BAU' fears of accelerating CO2 emissions, there is this article:
"Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong  rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels, putting the total emitted this year on track for 40bn tonnes. That means the global ‘carbon budget’, calculated as the total governments can afford to emit without pushing temperatures higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels, is likely to be used up within just one generation, or in thirty years from now."
Finally, in the IPCC's own AR5 SPM words:
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expectedto persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 °C to 4.8 °C compared to pre-industrial levels."
Conclusion: The alarmist science community and the IPCC's worst case GHG scenarios have been attained. Yet global temperatures (i.e. accelerated warming) have not responded accordingly. As one could surmise..."something is rotten in the state of computer climate science."
The climate science is indisputable...the known physics requires that each tonne of new CO2 emissions will have a smaller impact than the previous tonne...there is no escaping the actual logarithmic relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming.....
(click on to enlarge)
The known climate science of global warming is not a mystery. It is well documented climate physics that just about every scientist agrees with. And for the layperson, it's not terribly difficult to confirm.
3. A spreadsheet to make the necessary calculations and then plot the outcome.
These items were used to produce the adjacent chart. Five different time periods were chosen, then the warming (degree C) per CO2 tonne was calculated for each time period.
The resulting datapoints were then plotted and connected with a fitted trend (6th order).
Clearly, this actual climate science empirical evidence substantiates the known climate physics.
With this confirmation, one could assume that all warming since 1850 was due to human CO2 emissions, but then the logical conclusion is cast in concrete science - CO2's impact is shrinking towards zero, as observed, and likely will have even a smaller global warming impact in the future.
Note: The chart's fitted trend provides a sense of direction in the past but it has unreliable predictive qualities (if any). Why 1950-2013? Because the IPCC claims human CO2 is principal cause of warming since 1950. Why 1988-2013? Because in 1988, NASA's James Hansen testified that CO2 warming was accelerating and dangerous (it's been neither). Why 1997-2013? Because, it's been approximately 17 years with the 'paused' global warming. The 1850-2014 period assumes 17.5 gigatonnes of CO2 for first 7 months of 2014. Used 12-month HadCRUT averages to calculate deg/tonne.
CAGW alarmists can no longer deny the physics and the inconvenient climate empirical records...the feared trace gas CO2 is proving to be a toothless boogieman...tipping point global warming is off the agenda due to ever lower CO2 sensitivity.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
WUWT had a recent article regarding the continuous diminishing impact of CO2 on global temperatures.
The indisputable physics of climate science states that for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, that molecule will have a smaller impact than the one before it.
This diminishing return of CO2 is a well known logarithmic function, as described here.
This most recent article elaborates even further on the ever-sooner trivial CO2 influence, which the author summarizes in this manner:
===>"The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile."
A visualization of the diminishing CO2 impact is revealed by the adjacent top graph. Its plot is a simple ratio of total temperature change divided by atmospheric CO2 (ppm) change since January 1850.
As the graph clearly depicts, the ratio declines in the direction of zero as the growing total of added CO2 produces less and less global warming. Ergo, the climate's sensitivity to CO2 emission is shrinking, constantly.
The bottom graph is the same ratio but only for the shorter period, dating from January 1950 to June 2014. Obviously, the huge increase of atmospheric CO2 from the modern period's industrial/consumer engine has indeed produced a diminishing impact on global temperatures.
This is the empirical evidence that the IPCC and CAGW alarmists never want to talk about as it provides the proof that human CO2 emissions will not be causing massive climate calamities. Yes...those same scary catastrophes always being portrayed by the 97% "consensus" Hollywood science and the robustly gullible mainstream press.
Note: Using January 1850 as the base temperature anomaly and CO2 level month, the total change for both parameters was calculated for each subsequent month. Then for each subsequent month, the total temperature change from the base month was divided by the total CO2 ppm change - a ratio, maybe best described as the amount of temperature change produced by a molecule of CO2. The HadCRUT4 monthly global dataset was used for numerator calculations; denominator calculated from the combined CO2 datasets found here and here.
The just releasedBP Statistical Review includes an updated historical record of CO2 emissions across the world, through 2013.
While China's CO2 emissions have almost tripled since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the U.S. emissions have decreased about 2%.
That U.S. reduction actually is superior to all the world's major regions and entities, as identified by the BP research report. This U.S. reduction (see adjacent chart) took place even though the U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign the 'Protocol.'
With that said, any CO2 emission reduction by the U.S. is being immediately offset by the huge increases happening in other parts of the world. As a result, neither U.S. citizens, nor the world's, are benefiting from any U.S. CO2 reduction efforts.
To make the U.S. CO2 reduction aspirations even more bleak, if America could slash its emissions by 50% for each of the next 85 years, the net impact on global temperatures by 2100AD, at best, might be all of a measly -0.09°C.
That type of impact would require U.S. emissions to drop by some 3 billion metric tonnes per year, which based on today's technology, would likely amount to at least an annual $1 trillion expense (assumes a ludicrously low $400 per tonne cost to immediately replace all the lost fossil fuel utilization, needed new infrastructure, replacement transportation vehicles and g*d knows what else to survive).
NASA's climate research arm, GISS, recently updated its global temperature dataset.
Using the annual temperature anomaly data from GISS, in combination with annual CO2 data from NOAA, the temperature increase per atmospheric CO2 ppm increase can be calculated.
Now, if global warming is solely a function of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, then calculating the degree increase per ppm added would be a convenient measure to monitor.
As this chart reveals, for the 50-year period ending 1963, for each ppm increase of CO2 there was an associated increase of +0.024°C; in contrast, for the 50-year period ending 2013, the impact on warming was 67% less per ppm.
This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics - the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. Essentially, from lab testing it was determined that increasing levels of CO2 caused a diminishing returns effect, which is better described here.
The logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was first presented way back in the 1930s by a scientist named Guy Callendar, and it is now widely accepted as science fact.
And as the entire world knows by now, global warming is stuck in 'The Hiatus' that has resulted in temperatures barely budging over the last 16 years. This is despite the prodigious amounts of new CO2 emissions over that time span - recall, as the chart indicates, the influence of CO2 has declined.
What this means is that future CO2 emission impacts will likely continue to lessen, to the point where they become rather inconsequential, which the climate may already be approaching in a manner faster than expected.
Certainly, it would seem this fellow Callendar was really onto something. Plus, he discounted the speculative idea that higher levels of CO2 would create a positive feedback supposedly leading to ever higher temps. It appears he was wise to dismiss the shaky concept of "tipping point" positive feedbacks.
Not bad for a scientist without the "benefits" of super-computers, satellites, IPCC conferences, huge government funding of climate research and etc.
The atmospheric humidity levels that NOAA researchers publish continue to trend lower than climate model predictions - however, the mythical runaway global warming that catastrophic global warming (CAGW) alarmists promulgate requires atmospheric humidity to increase
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Read here. One of the great benefits of a free market and consumer choice is the economic incentive it provides innovators. As a result, our capitalistic-based society continues to be a cornucopia of better technology that is more efficient and better for the environment.
The iPhone has become a classic example of innovation that reveals capitalism to be the best engine for improving sustainability objectives.
Simply put, those green activists, the United Nations' apparatchiks, big government politicos and all the world's bureaucrats in combination have done far less for environmental quality than what the free market of choices and innovation have done.
And as we discussed in a previous article, the U.S. leads the world in reducing CO2 emissions, and did so without the burden of the stifiling and corruption-tainted 'stinking' CO2/carbon regulations that the EU has failed miserably with and Australia is now embracing.
Look again at the adjacent image, closely. Now, ask yourself: "which EU bureaucrat or Australian regulator produced the iPhone?" Oh....that's right....the bureucrats were busy working on their own hot innovation....you know, those marvelous innovations that always are heavily subsidized by the low income taxpayers to help the wealthy taxpayers buy.
The global warming science facts can often be so brutal for the climate-doomsday-from-CO2 alarmists >>> the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has determined that Asian pollution will warm the globe so much that it offsets any U.S. CO2 emission reductions
Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.
The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.
"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
The global warming science facts conclusions: Any attempt by the U.S. to massively reduce its CO2 emissions will be a total waste of money and effort as Asian pollution will easily offset that attempt. This NCAR analysis is eye-opening and should be seriously considered by America's policymakers. But it should be remembered that this analysis is based on global climate models, which have been incredibly ineffectual at predicting temperatures, let alone climate conditions across the world or in specific regions. And it should be pointed out that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 years have been on a cooling trend of minus 2 degrees (F) per century through April 2012 - for some reason, all those past Asian pollutants have not warmed the U.S.
Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi wanted to force the U.S. economy to a regulated 'cap and trade' straitjacket policy for CO2 emissions. This was the failed scheme that Australia and the EU actively pursued, and the U.S Democrats wanted to mimic.
The American public, and most Republicans, wanted nothing to do with 'cap & trade' straitjacket regulations, but instead desired a free market approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
And, as it now turns out, the American public and Republicans were a lot smarter than Obama, Pelosi and the incredibly dull leaders of Australia and the EU. Since 2006, the U.S. has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions and did it without bureaucratic mandates that politicians across the globe love.
Conclusion: The amazing and flexible free market in the U.S. has been responsible for the impressive and global-leading CO2 reductions, not the U.S. government and its stifling bureaucracy.
Hey, with that said about the wrong-way Democrats, Nancy sure does look great though, eh?
The actual greenhouse gas facts are considered to be weak evidence of catastrophic global warming hypothesis by the vast majority of scientists - latest NASA-GISS empirical information confirms why
(click on image to enlarge)
The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that even the vast majority of alarmist climate scientists (over 97%) agree that the predicted "accelerating" global warming has been non-existent over the last 15 years.
The greenhouse gas facts are so starkly inconvenient for the IPCC that its apostles have had to resort to outright fraud. This has been the unfortunate result in their attempt to discredit any scientist who analyzes the actual facts, such as the adjacent plot of global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.
"NYT's Revkin unloads on Peter Gleick! 'Gleick's use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others'...Revkin: 'One way or the other, ...That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I'm sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)'...His admitted acts of deception in acquiring the cache of authentic Heartland documents surely will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland's leadership insists is fake'"
Conclusion: Greenhouse gas facts continue to be very weak empirical evidence of catastrophic CO2-induced global warming as hypothesized by the UN's IPCC and its associated "scientists."
Last 15 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.77 degree increase by 2100
Last 10 years (thru March) global temperature trend: +0.07 degree increase by 2100
The IPCC scientists and global warming alarmists predicted that increasing CO2 emissions would lead to a catastrophic permafrost tipping point, unleashing gigatons of methane gas - they were wrong
Read here. The Fakegate global warming alarmists and the IPCC's Climategate scientists are enraptured with the doom and gloom of climate change "tipping points." A favorite tipping point is that greater levels of CO2 emissions would cause a global warming that thaws the permafrost in northern latitude regions (tundra regions), such as Siberia, thus releasing gigatons of the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.
This is referred to as the global warming permafrost tipping point that results in runaway temperature increases. A new peer reviewed study finds that is not happening.
"Focusing on the massive seasonally-frozen ground region of Eurasia, Frauenfeld and Zhang employed a database of soil temperature profiles obtained at 423 stations to estimate the maximum annual soil freezing depth at 387 sites, which they did for the period 1930-2000, with an extension to 2008...Except for warming during the 1970s and 80s, northern Eurasian temperatures appear to have remained fairly stable. And of that warming, Frauenfeld and Zhang state that "the strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to 1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period." Thus, their work provides little to no evidence for any significant warming of this massive portion of earth's land mass over the past two decades, and absolutely no evidence for recent CO2-induced warming." [Oliver W Frauenfeld, Tingjun Zhang 2011: Environmental Research Letters]
Conclusion: The permafrost tipping point does not endanger the world since the thawing of northern global regions has stabilized since the 1990's, despite the huge increase in CO2 emissions.
AGW alarmist climate scientists predicted that increasing human CO2 emissions would cause an increase in water vapor with the result being a global warming tipping point - empirical evidence completely discredits that prediction
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. Very simply, for the IPCC's climate models predicted runway global warming to happen, there has to be a positive feedback from atmospheric CO2 that pushes the climate to a "tipping point." The positive feedback in the IPCC's computer models is an ever increasing atmospheric water vapor level (greenhouse gas) due to rising temperatures from CO2.
In the real world though, that positive feedback has not happened, as the adjacent chart of relative humidity (atmospheric water vapor) and global temperatures shows. And now, a new peer reviewed study in the prestigious Journal of Climate is confirming that the global warming tipping point hypothesis is without any empirical merit.
"A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusion: The IPCC alarmist global warming tipping point does not exist over the long term - instead, over periods less than a decade, the climate will likely return to an equilibrium position due to built-in negative feedbacks.
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts
As the adjacent chart shows, atmospheric CO2 levels have been methodically rising. Per the IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts, the rising CO2 should cause a water vapor "tipping point" that would cause "runaway" warming. It hasn't, on both counts.
The bold blue curve reveals atmospheric relative humidity actually decreasing (less water vapor) over the last 17 years since the end of 1994. The bold red curve represents the slowing growth of atmospheric warming, as measured by NASA's own satellite.
In essence, the fabled positive feedback the climate models use does not exist, and climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is robustly lower than assumed.
If the 17-year satellite linear trend were to continue unchanged, the global temperature increase by year 2100 would be only +1.13 degrees, well below the IPCC's minimum prediction. The last 10-year linear trend (not shown in chart) indicates an increase of a measly +0.3 degrees for global temps by 2100, which would be barely perceptible.
Simply stated, the IPCC can't predict squat, especially anything to do with climate changes due to human CO2. Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
The mainstream press has consistently misinformed and mislead the public regarding global warming science - the NYTs does it again with the never-ending, bogus methane gas scare
Read here. The New York Times, the essential U.S. propaganda instrument for left / liberal / progressive /Democrat policies, has for decades gleefully misrepresented actual climate science, plus wildly exaggerating the global warming fears expressed by scientists who rely on government funding for their current or future research.
The latest example of this was the NY Times's story about the feared methane gas "tipping point" that is being caused by the "accelerating" (Not!) global warming.
As the above chart indicates, the growth of methane gas concentration at surface level in the Arctic region has slowed considerably since the 1980s (blue trend line). This actual empirical evidence refutes the "climate science" from "experts" that the NYTs has reported for years. Contrary to what the NYTs tells its readers, the minor global warming has not caused a rapid growth of methane gas due to a melting of the Arctic frozen regions.
Using Excel, the trend growth lines for the different periods of methane levels were calculated for the above chart. The green trend line of the 2000s has a slightly less slope than the red trend line, which means that surface methane gas growth has slowed since the 80s, considerably.
Unfortunately, the vast legions of left-oriented readers that only get their climate science from the mainstream media remain immensely ignorant to the actual empirical evidence. Instead, outlets such as the Times and the Washington Post primarily publish biased "press release" science that has the sole purpose of misleading the public through fear of the future. Literally, this is the reason why progressives / leftists appear so incredibly stupid about man-made (Hardly!) global warming.
Go here for DIY science; plot methane measurements from around the world for yourself. Note that this site does not include 2011 data yet.
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.
Scientists determine IPCC hysteria about global warming causing Arctic methane gas "tipping point" release to be unfounded - it's not happening
Read here. The UN's IPCC, 'Big Green' and Climategate scientists are all about alarming the public and policymakers, actual science be damned. In this case, the usual scare-culprits came up with a theory that CO2 warming of global will cause a super release of the powerful greenhouse gas methane that would lead to a "tipping point" and "runaway" global warming.
And as it almost always turns out with the IPCC and Big Green, their hysterical climate change predictions are found to be meritless. The research team of Dmitrenko et al. pretty much defused this blown out of proportion prediction, adding to the incredibly long list of failed IPCC fear mongering prognostications.
"So despite a warming Arctic, the feared large methane release has not been manifest. Which fits very nicely into the new results from Dmitrenko and colleagues. They find that the methane observed to be bubbling up from the Arctic seafloor off the coast of Siberia to be the ongoing and long-term response to the flooding of the seabed there that occurred some 8,000 years ago and not a response to recent warming in the region...Dmitrenko et al. write: The CH4 [methane] supersaturation, recently reported from the eastern Siberian shelf, is believed to be the result of the degradation of subsea permafrost that is due to the long-lasting warming initiated by permafrost submergence about 8000 years ago rather than from those triggered by recent Arctic climate changes...The new Dmitrenko result pretty much throws cold water on the “shocking” news that has been making its way through the global media in recent days that reports from a recent survey of the Siberian Arctic Shelf indicate that vast quantities of methane are bubbling to the surface of the ocean and that this is “stok[ing] new global warming fears.” [Igor A. Dmitrenko, Sergey A. Kirillov, L. Bruno Tremblay, Heidemarie Kassens, Oleg A. Anisimov, Sergey A. Lavrov, Sergey O. Razumov, Mikhail N. Grigoriev 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
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.
Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.
In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.
Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)
The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.
The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.
The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.
However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.
This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.
"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."
Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?
Read here. Honestly, sometimes the debunking of climate "settled" science feels like shooting fish in a barrel. As we have discussed often at 'C3', most of the IPCC climate predictions have proven to be wrong - certainly, one can fairly conclude that actual climate science is very unsettled at this point in time.
With that said, another debunking of an IPCC prediction has been confirmed.
Recent research by Aydin et al. established, without reservation, that methane gases had not increased as predicted by the AGW hypothesis and the UN's IPCC Climategate scientists were promulgating. In essence, the infamous "methane" tipping point is another failed climate model prognostication.
This team of researchers spent tax payer monies to speculate what happened to the IPCC's methane and, of course, to make an implied plea for more funds to investigate further. Did we say "unsettled" yet?
"Recent data from NSF-funded research in both Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate that fossil-fuel related emissions of both methane and ethane, two of the most abundant hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, declined at the end of the twentieth century...causes of the decline in methane emission rates to the atmosphere have been puzzling scientists for some time. This new study shows that a change in human activities may have played a key role in the recent leveling off of methane, which, being a potent greenhouse gas contributes to global temperatures..."
"We still have more research to conduct, but this discovery is significant... We must work together to continue to find ways to further our research on this very important subject." [Murat Aydin, Kristal R. Verhulst, Eric S. Saltzman, Mark O. Battle, Stephen A. Montzka, Donald R. Blake, Qi Tang, Michael J. Prather 2011: Nature]
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. Back in 2009, NASA launched a new satellite that was supposed to locate the 'missing CO2' that the IPCC has found so elusive, to the point of embarrassment. Being unable to account for the still AWOL CO2, which of course is the main ingredient in the IPCC's AGW hypothesis, is well...er...an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the satellite launch failed. A failure likely due to Obama's NASA of HOPE, since they now think there is a higher calling than actual science and launch successes, which is a whole nother story.
With that snark accomplished, the major problem of the missing CO2 remains and there is now a new study (more on that later) that proffers a new hypothesis to the missing CO2 riddle.
Currently, what is absolutely known about the missing CO2 is that it implies the IPCC's AGW "settled" climate science is not really settled, by a long shot. Essentially here are the facts regarding the "missing CO2."
1. Scientists estimate that only 50% of each years new CO2 emissions can be accounted for - yes, that means the other 50% is missing.
2. Since pre-industrial times, some 499 billion tons of CO2 has been emitted by humans.
3. Since pre-industrial times some 266 billion tons have been stored in the atmosphere; some 118 billion tons has been stored in the oceans; and, these two figures combined represent 334 billion tons stored.
4. Since pre-industrial times, some 165 billion tons of human CO2 emissions have gone missing. (The 165 figure is the difference between 499 and 334 billion tons.)
6. The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years. (click on chart to enlarge)
Based on all the above, how could any climate scientist, let a lone the IPCC, claim that the science is "settled"? Not only are vast amounts of CO2 emissions not accounted for on a yearly basis, there is also the known IPCC claim that human CO2 emissions are stored in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousand of years yet 50% goes "missing" each year - in other words, in reality, it ain't stored in the atmosphere.
Thus, not surprisingly, the IPCC and its quack climate scientists resort to a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo speculation to get around these known, major embarrassing CO2 issues with the AGW hypothesis.
Now comes a new study based on...ahem...a computer model that suggests the missing CO2 actually is being absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. Esser et al. propose that a requisite combination of CO2 and nitrogen aerial fertilization explains how the "missing CO2" has actually been absorbed by vegetation, which means it's definitely not remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
As one can see, the science is far from settled and there is no current consensus as to where the 'missing CO2' goes - that's why scientists like Esser et al. keep performing new research.
"In pursuing this course of action, Esser et al. found that nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere in the absence of an increase in the air's CO2 concentration "would result in only minor additional carbon accumulation in plant biomass," while rising CO2 alone, without consideration of the nitrogen cycle, would bind roughly half of the carbon in the postulated carbon sink. And in the most realistic situation of all, they determined that "a complete ensemble of rising atmospheric CO2 and N2 fixation, denitrification, and leaching is necessary to achieve the 160 Pg [billion tons] C bound in the terrestrial biosphere between 1860 and 2002 as required by the missing sink concept." [GERD ESSER, JENS KATTGE, ABDULLA SAKALLI1 2011: Global Change Biology ]
Read here. Recently, Willis Eschenbach did a devastating piece on Joe Romm's anti-science, specifically taking him to task for the ludicrous claim that atmospheric CO2 levels are exhibiting "super-exponentially, accelerating" growth. Willis does an excellent job of explaining real, empirical science to Romm in regards to CO2, and below we add a few more charts that further expose the lunacy of typical left/liberal/progressive/Democrat anti-science, which Romm exemplifies. (click on images to enlarge)
The three charts above depict atmospheric CO2 growth in different formats. Indeed, the CO2 levels are increasing, per the seasonal corrected measurement data since late 1958. The growth of CO2 level is fairly monotonous, and, yes, the growth rate has increased over time.
But there is absolutely no objective, numerical evidence that CO2 growth is on an exponential path, let alone a "super-exponential, accelerating" growth, whatever the hell that is since it's non-scientific terminology (did we say anti-science propaganda yet?). Ooops...ahem...The Romm claim of super-exponential growth is pure anti-science propaganda!
In addition, way back in summer of 1988, James Hansen provided testimony that if CO2 levels continued growing in a "business as usual" manner, the globe would suffer from significant warming. On the top chart above is marked when Hansen's testimony occurred, which clearly indicates Hansen's prediction (a non-exponential prediction, btw) about CO2 growth was prescient. His CO2 prediction was at least reality-based, unlike Romm's anti-science ramblings.
And fortunately for the world, Hansen's climate model temperature prediction, and leftist scare hypebole, that global temperatures would warm significantly due to "business as usual" was an utter failure, as we now know.
Update: Total CO2 emissions through 2010. "Business as usual" growth, but not exponential.
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. IPCC Climategate science predicts that as CO2 increase in atmosphere, the resulting warming will increase the atmosphere's water vapor levels, which will cause more warming (a positive feedback).
Unfortunately for the IPCC, that major tenet of the AGW hypothesis has not worked so well, as the below atmospheric humidity chart from www.climate4you.com reveals. (click on image to enlarge)
Now a new study discovers why the water vapor levels have not increased as predicted. Lammertsma et al. determine that as CO2 levels rise, vegetation responds in two ways: one, by absorbing more CO2 for food production, and two, releasing less water vapor. The scientists calculate that with this vegetation response, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm levels will cut in half the amount of atmospheric water vapor - that's called a major, natural, NEGATIVE feedback.
This negative feedback that will have a huge impact on the atmosphere's water vapor content is not included in any climate models that the IPCC, NASA and NOAA utilize. This may be a major reason why these models have continually failed in their predictions. Thus, current models' estimates of climate sensitivity evaporate, or if you prefer, transpire...or, is climate sensitivity kind of a climate model 'vaporware' chartacteristic.
"As carbon dioxide levels have risen during the last 150 years, the density of pores that allow plants to breathe has dwindled by 34 percent, restricting the amount of water vapor the plants release to the atmosphere, report scientists.....“The increase in carbon dioxide by about 100 parts per million has had a profound effect on the number of stomata and, to a lesser extent, the size of the stomata,” ...“Our analysis of that structural change shows there’s been a huge reduction in the release of water to the atmosphere.”...If there are fewer stomata, or the stomata are closed more of the day, gas exchange will be limited.....suggests that a doubling of today’s carbon dioxide levels — from 390 parts per million to 800 ppm — will halve the amount of water lost to the air, concluding in the second paper that “plant adaptation to rising CO2 is currently altering the hydrological cycle and climate..." [Emmy Lammertsma, Hugo de Boer, David Dilcher, Stefan Dekker, Andre Lotter, Friederike Wagner-Cremer, and Martin Wassen 2011:PNAS1 and PNAS2]
Read here and here. Alarmists love to speak of catastrophic climate "tipping points" that the climate models predict. A favored "tipping point" are the models' prediction that an increase in methane gas released into the atmosphere (due to AGW-warming) will cause an acceleration of climate warming. That's the alarmist theory.
What's the data say though? Turns out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill provided real world empirical evidence that totally refutes the hysterical claims and model predictions for a methane "tipping point."
"“Based on our measurements from earlier in the summer and previous other measurements of methane respiration rates around the world, it appeared that (Deepwater Horizon) methane would be present in the Gulf for years to come. Instead, the methane respiration rates increased to levels higher than have ever been recorded, ultimately consuming it and prohibiting its release to the atmosphere.“"...."What the Deepwater Horizon incident has taught us is that releases of methane with similar characteristics will not have the capacity to influence climate.""
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists have designed climate models that predict that methane (CH4) gases will increase as the world warms, causing a positive feedback that will then accelerate the warming increase, potentially to a "tipping" point.
New peer-reviewed research, though, sheds light on poorly understood climate processes that will actually negate additional releases of CH4, thus eliminating the beloved "runaway" positive feedback scenario from causing accelerated warming. (The "OMG-were-all-going-to-fry" type of warming that Gore, Hansen and the MSM speculate about.)
Scientists have discovered that soils in forested areas act as a huge sink for methane, absorbing even more as the soil becomes drier from warming - a negative feedback that climate models are presently incapable of predicting.
"Guckland et al. report that "the variation of CH4 uptake over time could be explained to a large extent by changes in soil moisture in the upper five centimeters of the mineral soil," such that "the CH4 uptake during the main growing period (May-September) increased considerably with decreasing precipitation rate," which finding, as they describe it, is "in accordance with the general observation that soil moisture is the primary environmental control on CH4 uptake in soils because it regulates methane flux into the soil through diffusion....."The results suggest that climate change [in this case, global warming] will result in increasing CH4 uptake rates in this region because of the trend to drier summers and warmer winters." And this response represents a negative feedback that should help to temper predicted increases in CO2-induced global warming." [Guckland, A., Flessa, H. and Prenzel, J. 2009.]
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."
Read here. The UK's Prince Charles is one of those wealthy global elites who now believes he has been put on Earth to save it, from the rest of us - yikes! Over the years, like so many of the rich and merit-less, he has become extremely fearful of human CO2 emissions, and never tires from lecturing about how others should live their lives. Of course, this includes his advice that everyone else should live a low carbon, low energy lifestyle, with the exception of his truly.
Back in 2009, 'da' Prince predicted the world only had 96 months before the global warming apocalypse. Gee, maybe his predictions will be better than all the failed ones from IPCC climate alarmist scientists! Hmmm...not likely. Here's what's causing the Prince to act like he's got bees in the bonnet (or is that bats in the belfry?). The potential of CO2 growing from its pre-industrial levels to 560 ppm by century-end has the prince literally going delusional.
Read here, here, and here. As C3 readers have discovered, the multiple prediction failures of IPCC climate models are a result of many factors. A recent peer-reviewed study now adds a new one to the ever growing list.
Scientists, using empirical evidence from actual real-world experiments, find that the IPCC climate models' assumption that there is a huge positive feedback from an increase in temperatures, causing more CO2 release from soils and vegetation, causing more temperature increase, ad infinitum, is gigantically wrong. So wrong that it's even becoming obvious to the mainstream press: "
‘Runaway climate change’
‘unrealistic’, say scientists
Several of the critical points from the study:
"1. The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. This makes it difficult to make predictions, especially as many processes in the Earth system are still not completely understood. 2. Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.” 3. “It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” says Markus Reichstein. “The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global material cycles and their importance for long-term developments.” 4. “We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”"
Read here. The Norwegian CO2 capture and sequestration project, after consuming billions of dollars, has been put on hold for at least 4 years. Multiple issues plague the project, including potentially fouling the atmosphere with carcinogenic substances.
Despite all the attention around CO2 capture, there is surprisingly little knowledge about the health effects and environmental effects of several compounds that can be formed...A theoretical study shows that some of these may be harmful, depending on the amine used and the extent to which these substances are formed. In particular, one must be aware of the concentration of transformation products that may be carcinogenic."...
One can only gasp at the fact that the environmentalists are angered by the delay in a totally unnecessary CO2 capture project because waste substances have major health and environmental consequences.
Read here and here. Researchers keep discovering aspects of the Earth's climate system that completely undermines the credibility of climate alarmist scientists and existing climate models. In the case of the climate models, submarine volcanoes (whether one, or three million) are not accounted for despite everyone knowing they must have some major impact on our climate. These volcanoes spew millions (billions?) of tons of CO2 and other compounds into the oceans and researchers are just now starting to theorize and document what effects may be occurring as a result.
Are volcanoes contributing to ocean acidification?
"It was the distinct lack of acidification of all the planet’s other water sources that prompted researchers to investigate why oceans alone were showing signs of increasing acidification....if human atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide were causing the oceans to acidify then why weren’t we seeing the same levels of rising acidity in rivers and reservoirs?....By finding no increases anywhere in inland water systems this study has inevitably concluded that any human emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide must be excluded as a potential source of oceanic acidification."
Are volcanoes slowing climate change?
"A vast network of under-sea volcanoes pumping out nutrient-rich water in the Southern Ocean plays a key role in soaking up large amounts of carbon dioxide, acting as a brake on climate change, scientists say...A group of scientists have shown for the first time that the volcanoes are a major source of iron that single-celled plants called phytoplankton need to bloom and in the process soak up CO2, the main greenhouse gas."
Can volcanoes change the climate? New studies confirm that volcanoes can cause massive change.
Read here. During the world's "warmest" decade ending 2009, Alaska's tundra areas have experienced warming and thawing. Per the IPCC climate scientists' predictions, the Alaskan thawing tundra areas should be producing higher amounts of methane gas, at an accelerated rate.
As is most often the case, scientists who predict catastrophe are most often the ones who are spectacularly wrong. The predicted accelerating increase of the feared methane gas, from warming Alaskan tundra, has spectacularly been wrong, as the latest decade evidence reveals. Source of below graph here.
Read here. In their concerted effort to prove current temperatures are warmer than Medieval temperatures, IPCC paleo-climate scientists scoured tree-ring research to identify tree populations (even single trees) that exhibited a sharp uptick in growth during the 2nd half of the 20th century. If they found a tree-ring study that exhibited a hockey-stick blade, they would include it in their published research as an indication that the trees were responding to unprecedented warming.
But was this really the case? Although some species of trees respond with faster growth from higher temperatures, there are other more important factors that contribute to all trees' growth. The most important factor is availability of atmospheric CO2 - vegetation responds to higher levels of CO2 with accelerated growth. More often than not, it is CO2 levels that primarily create a hockey-stick "blade" effect, not temperatures.
The chart below is research from a study of Greek fir trees, which clearly shows the post-1980 accelerated growth of tree-rings versus earlier periods, as compared to concurrent levels of CO2, temperatures and precipitation. Without doubt, the research reveals that CO2 levels are driving growth. Interesting update on trees and temperatures here.
"....there was a "strong acceleration of growth over the second half of the 20th century," and he notes that "the sustained increase in growth since 1990 in particular is unprecedented over the full length of the data set." He also correctly notes that these positive growth trends "bear no relationship to regional temperature or precipitation variations and therefore are unlikely to be climatically induced....About the only rational explanation for the late 20th-century growth acceleration seen in the ring-width data, therefore, is Koutavas' suggestion that "the enhanced growth reflects a fertilization effect due to rising CO2 in the global atmosphere." We agree. Although the correlation between the increasing trends of both atmospheric CO2 content and ring-width growth over this period does not prove causation, such is certainly a logical conclusion when (1) no other environmental parameter can explain the growth enhancement and (2) the results of hundreds of experiments have shown that tree growth is indeed enhanced in CO2-enriched air."
The IPCC's catastrophic global warming claims for most skeptics border on the realm of insanity. In addition, the predictions for global temperatures by 2100 require a certain level of consensus irrationality, such as accepting runaway climate sensitivity due to never experienced positive feedback. Even the most basic predictions that are claimed by global warming proponents are totally out-of-sync with reality. The IPCC's CO2 growth predictions are such examples.
Unless atmospheric CO2 levels jump to a new growth rate immediately, the "Twilight Zone" IPCC climate science will continue to implode. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here and here. As with every unsubstantiated, speculative prediction made by alarmists and climate models, there is a grain of truth regarding melting tundra/permafrost releasing stored carbon dioxide. But researchers have discovered that when these melted areas are thawed, the explosion of new growth of vegetation becomes a positive CO2 sink that sequesters carbon dioxide in greater quantities than that released from the thaw. So instead of permafrost melting being a positive warming feedback, it actually becomes a negative feedback - funny how the climate always seems to do that in the end.
"In light of these compelling observations, it would appear that even if global warming were to accelerate and reach a tipping point that led to the demise of much of the world's permafrost, the subsequent "terrestrialization" of these regions would actually lead to more carbon being stored in the soils and vegetation of these parts of the world, rather than -- as climate alarmist claim -- more being lost."
And what about the release of methane (CH4) from melting?
"Delisle throws in another fast ball regarding methane (CH4) at the end of the article by stating “A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”"
Just another reason why climate models are not an accurate representation of how the real-world climate actually works.
Read here. As has been well documented by many peer-reviewed studies, increases in atmospheric CO2 has done wonders for the biosphere and vegetation growth. The Amazon is just the most spectacular example.
"Gloor et al. conclude that their results lend "further support to the notion that currently observed biomass gains for intact forests across the Amazon are actually occurring over large scales at the current time, presumably as a response to climate change," which in many of their earlier papers is explicitly stated to include the aerial fertilization effect of the historical increase in the air's CO2 content."
Read here, here and here. There are a multitude of good reasons why subsidizing ethanol production and mandating its use is plain craziness. The most important reason though, is the fact that a gallon of ethanol spews more CO2 than a gallon of gas (we should replace all ethanol with oil-based gas that comes from U.S. resources - "drill baby, drill" policies). If the politicians and the EPA really felt CO2 was a harmful pollutant, and would endanger not only humans but the climate also, they would be morally be obligated to immediately kill the subsidies and mandates. Obviously, it's all about money and control, not reducing CO2 emissions.
"Replacing the US gasoline consumption of 138 billion gallons annually with ethanol biofuel — just as the government energy policy wants to do — would add about 138 billion pounds of carbon dioxide annually from renewable ethanol biofuel. This is an additional 69 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air annually. The government energy policy would increase rather than decrease carbon dioxide into the air, just the opposite of what the government climate policy wants to do."
Source here. The official 2009 U.S. temperature was 53.13°F. The official 1900 U.S. temperature was 53.53°F. This is not the global warming Jim Hansen, Al Gore and the devoted had in mind when they claimed that the billions of tons of CO2 humans were pouring into the atmosphere would turn the world into an oven.
Why were they so wrong? Well, probably because human CO2 emissions really don't have that large of an impact on temperatures. During 2009, multiple studies were released indicating that other climate forcings, such as solar, cosmic ray, land-use, black soot (aerosols) and clouds, do have a major impact on global temperatures. These forcings combined would represent an impact multiple times greater than CO2. For the devoted, the sad news has become ever more obvious: CO2 is a bit player regarding temperatures. For plants though, it's the cat's pajamas. (click on image to enlarge)
The graph reveals an overall temperature trend of 1.18°F per century, which will decline as the existing cooling period lengthens. The prior warming and cooling periods are indicated by the dashed boxes. The red dashed line at the top represents the latest 100 year temperature predictions being churned out by climate models (the predictions are predicated on human CO2 having a large impact, which it hasn't).
Read here. The climate alarmist scientists have made every effort during 2009 to hype global warming and climate change scares. As the CO2 emissions scare weakened in the face of mounting evidence that human CO2 does not have a major impact on temperatures, the alarmists turned their focus on methane. As the chart below reveals though, methane levels did not "accelerate" as predicted in 2009, nor have they been on an accelerating trend for the last 8 years. In fact, methane levels will hold steady for extended periods, then will shift up for a short time (as in 2007), then return to a steady state; this growth pattern seems to have no relationship to human activities. (click image to enlarge)
As everyone in the world knows by now, the U.N.'s IPCC, its Climategate scientists, other consensus-only "scientists", and the mainstream media have put all their money on the human CO2-horse that "causes" global warming. Unfortunately, the IPCC political agenda of proving human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming and/or climate change has not proven terribly effective or convincing (google Copenhagen failure). Why?
The IPCC chose a pseudo, non-scientific approach that was unable to explain the actual real-world (non-model) physical science and the actual climate observable conditions since 1880, as this chart indicates -- human CO2 emissions are not a major, primary driver of temperatures, nor the climate. Instead, the IPCC science focus should be on solar, land-use and aerosol (soot, dust, etc.) forcings. The 5% increase in global temperatures is more likely due to black soot, solar/cosmic and land-use factors than CO2. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: The IPCC climate science assumes that all human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for 100 to 200 years. The vast majority of peer-reviewed research finds, though, that human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere less than 10 years. The IPCC assumes this without any physical evidence and it has been a major reason why IPCC climate models have been absolute failures in predicting major climate trends, like the recent global cooling.
The adjacent chart shows the cumulative growth percentage in human fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 1880, versus the cumulative growth percentage for both the atmospheric CO2 levels and the NCDC global average temperature. If human CO2 has a global warming impact, it's not significant based on the actual evidence, i.e., human CO2 emissions have a low correlation with global temperature increases. (The 'Human CO2 Emissions' bar is based on assumption that total human fossil fuel CO2 emissions prior to 1880 was a cumulative 20 gigatons.)
Read here, here, and here. Some scientists involved in the Climategate scandal (emanating out of the UK's CRU facility) were also participants in determining the historical CO2 levels to be used in climate models. They established that pre-industrial CO2 levels (see solid green curve on chart below) were at a 270/280 ppm level in the atmosphere. This level was first determined by a single earlier scientist cherry-picking only selected CO2 data readings that matched his desired low CO2 level goal; and later, scientists had difficulties matching the ice core CO2 data with the previous cherry-picked CO2 records, so they just "adjusted" the ice core CO2 data to fit their needs. Obviously, as with the "adjusted" temperatures scandal, Climategate-type science has infected the CO2 data.
In summary, there is strong empirical evidence that pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels were some 15 to 30% higher than IPCC assumes. This means that IPCC climate model' formulas are based on incorrect, "adjusted" CO2 data.
This chart shows human CO2 emissions and CO2 atmospheric levels (IPCC estimated "adjusted" levels from ice cores and probable actual historical levels from non-ice core data). (click on image to enlarge)
Read here and here. [Upadate 4/6/2011: The below chart is a global representation of satellite data, not a measurement of a specific location, such as the stratosphere over Colorado, for example. For more 'C3' postings regarding greenhouse gases, go here.]
Another failure for the IPCC climate models and the overall CO2 AGW hypothesis that relies on a phantom positive feedback water vapor mechanism - the climate opera is at the curtain call and the phantom is AWOL. (click on image to enlarge)
"Increasing atmospheric CO2 does not by itself result in significant warming. The climate models assume a significant positive feedback of increased water vapor in order to amplify the CO2 effect and achieve the future warming reported by the IPCC....According to the IPCC, “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“"
Read here. Climate models predicted that the oceans and terrestrial carbon sinks would no longer be able to absorb the growing human CO2 emissions, thus causing excess CO2 to be absorbed by the atmosphere. This model prediction is one of the means of their further predicting that global temperatures would increase. Actual scientific research, not computer climate model predictions, discovers that both oceans and earth's ecosystems are easily absorbing the human CO2 emissions.
Read here. The new and robust vegetation growth in Africa comes as no surprise to those who follow the actual science of CO2 impact on the biosphere. Vegetation, be it grasslands or forests or agriculture, love higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures. It's not only Africa that will improve due to more CO2 and warmer temperatures, the entire world will.
Read here. It now appears that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong in their conclusion that old rain forests naturally become carbon 'sources' in old age. (Imagine that, the scientific "consensus" wasn't correct, amazing.)
The new research has discovered these old trees to be sucking up the excess CO2, much to their liking and new growth. Scientists now estimate these old forests might account for up to 50% of the infamous, global "missing carbon sink."
Read here. Despite MSM journalists/pundits and Hollywood celebrities not being able to grasp the basic science that CO2 is the 'stuff of life,' scientific researchers continue to find and document that increasing CO2 is good for the planet, for vegetation, for animals, and for humanity.
Read here. IPCC climate scientists claim that increases/decreases of CO2 are the Earth's principal driver in climate change. Study after study proves that this claim is absolutely wrong. The coral areas surrounding the Tahitian islands have recorded pre-history climate change and the corals indicate CO2 changes are irrelevant. The prediction failures of IPCC climate models can be blamed on the incorrect model assumption that CO2 change is a "cause," not an "effect."
Read here. When we produced the CO2 'Residence Time' chart for a posting back in September, it did not occur to us that it would become our second most popular chart (here's the most popular C3 chart so far, thanks to ClimateDepot.com). We even found our CO2 'Residency' chart in Lord Monkton's latest PDF report that can be found here - it's a good read every month even without our chart.
Credit to Lawrence Solomon's book, "The Deniers," for CO2 information that was used to populate the CO2 'Residence Time' chart.