It has become an embarrassing national embarrassment regarding the Obama administration's allergic reaction to truth and facts...and climate science has not been spared from the White House dishonesty...a very recent example is the Obama claim that U.S. wildfires are worse...even NPR points out the inevitable Pinocchio.....
(click image for source)
As this NPR article documents (click on image), modern U.S. western region wildfire occurrence (and severity), despite the huge increase atmospheric CO2, is below what took place during historical and ancient times.
The latest research, including the three new studies cited by NPR, is unequivocal about this.
Yet the Obama White House and its science "advisor" tout recent wildfire anecdotal stories without a single reference to the actual empirical evidence of the past - and even no mention of the modern wildfire evidence.
Ahem...that for most people is known as 'lying,' plain and simple. Surprised?
As the world's populace nutrition improves, according tothe experts at Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the IPCC with its built-in political agenda to demonize CO2 and global warming, reports the opposite...lying is no longer even an art form for the fear-mongers of global warming and climate change catastrophe fantasies...it's blatant and brazen.....
(click on to enlarge)
The experts now estimate that the number of undernourished has decreased some 17%, from 1990 to 2103 - approximately 165 million less. Yet for the IPCC's 2014 AR5 report, they report an increase of 75 million.
There is no scientific reason, nor objective rationale for the IPCC misleading policymakers and the public so egregiously.
"Rather than using up-to-date FAO data showing a steady decline in undernourishment during a period of increasing temperatures (which they either were aware of or ought to have been aware of), the IPCC chose to feature an increase in an obsolete data set that had been previously highlighted in an “policy-relevant monograph” cited by IPCC. IPCC coyly described this earlier dataset as “provisional”...Why didn’t IPCC clearly report the long-term decline in undernourishment during a period of temperature increase. This is information that is relevant to policy-makers. And, in particular, why did IPCC highlight a supposed increase in “provisional” data (more precisely now long obsolete data) when the increase changed to a decrease in the up-to-date version of the data?...It’s hard to think of a good reason."
There's a dirty little secret about the major CO2 emission reductions Obama's EPA is proposing...cutting CO2 emissions will have an impact of just about squat on global temperatures and the EPA is hiding that inconvenient factoid.....
(click image to enlarge)
To the numbers:
===> The EPA is proposing a 30% reduction of power plant CO2 emissions from 2005 levels
===> The reductions are expected to reduce U.S. economic growth by some $2 trillion
===> Consumers of electricity can expect their rates to increase by 10% per year
===> The CO2 regulations will likely reduce employment by 600,000, plus make U.S. manufacturing (huge consumers of electricity) even less competitive
===> Finally, per an expert computer analysis of the CO2 reductions, based on the known physics of climate science, the expected global temperature increase by 2100AD will be smaller, by an immeasurable, undetectable, trivial 0.02 degree, and that's rounded up.
The chart tells the factual story.
The IPCC is predicting global temperatures to be about 16°C by 2100. And with the EPA reductions? They still expect global temperatures to be about 16 degrees (15.98°).
And if global temperatures exceed the IPCC prediction and climb to 18 or 20 degrees by 2100, what then will be the EPA reduction impact? Still squat, since the global temperature averted will not change from 0.02°C.
What could make this 'squat' result even more embarrassingly bad for Americans? The evil CO2 twins, China and India.
While the U.S. has reduced its emissions by 7% over the last 5 years, China and India have increased theirs a combined 32%. The EPA enforced CO2 reduction will not only make Americans poorer, any global warming reduction will be completely wiped out and vastly exceeded by other nation's (America's global competitors) huge CO2 increases.
Talk about freaking and amazingly stupid bureaucrats gone wild.
Even the progressive liberal New Republic recognizes the non-existent temperature impact of the Democrats' CO2 regulations on global warming:
"The goal of these regulations is not to stop global warming, but to prove to the international community that the U.S. is ready to pay additional costs to combat climate change."
To summarize: The Democratic Party and Obama are using EPA bureaucrats to deliver a meaningless symbolic "climate change" message to foreign elites, purposefully sacrificing and harming American labor, consumers and businesses. To top it off, Obama's regulations ultimately produces no climate benefit or global warming reduction.
Hey, not that anyone is keeping close track of when Obama will depart from the White House, and gee whiz, not that anyone keeps track of the global warming and climate exaggerations emanating from his administration...this stuff just seems to happen, ya' know...why should anyone care when the empirical and scientific evidence is totally ignored by elected Democrat officials?...go figure!, racist, denier, fellow citizen, comrade....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The current occupant of the Oval Office has now been there 66 full months. The adjacent temperature trends depict the first full 65 months of his administration, through June 2014 (July 2014 anomalies not yet available).
Simply stated, since Obama's tenure began, both U.S. and global temperatures have experienced a cooling trend - not the dangerous, rapid global warming from CO2 that he and other Democrats brazenly predicted, and still speak of like the crazy old uncle in the attic.
In addition, this administration continues to be robustly confused about modern extreme weather events and how they compare to what took place earlier in the 20th century.
Okay, it's 2,024 days checked off and only 899 days to go. Wouldn't it be great if President Obama just decided to go out in style with the truth that Americans now abundantly know (and desire from their leaders) versus pushing indefensible lies that aren't supported by any empirical evidence? Oh well...we can wish for utopia, no?
A combination of fanatical green activists and wealthy crony-capitalists has produced a strong influence over the Obama administration and its climate policies/regulations ...Democrats in Congress have also been bought off...unfortunately for the American public, these corrupting motivations lead the government and bureaucrats down policy paths that ignore climate history and its science.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
"What's the weather tomorrow?" 'Been, there, done that'
"What will the climate be 10 years from now?" 'Been there, done that.'
Regardless of human activities and human CO2 emissions, the climate and weather have a strong, built-in natural rhythm that takes place, relentlessly.
The scientific evidence is unequivocal about this: the global climate repeats itself.
The adjacent chart plots the scientific empirical evidence - the globe naturally cycles through periods of extreme cooling and warming. And as the evidence reveals, the Obama/Kerry climate-porn duo exist during a period of cooling, not the extreme accelerating global warming that they claim.
For context, the chart extends back to the 1850s, with major peaks in the global warming trend identified with the president occupying the Oval Office at the time.
Note that the highest peaks (ie. dangerous and rapid global warming) took place prior to 1950 and the modern era's industrial/consumer CO2 emissions. Note also that after peaks were reached, the climate naturally repeated its cooling phase - every single freaking time.
And because presidents and Democrats during those times did not deny the natural cyclical peaks and valleys of the global climate, they did not end up making fools of themselves by claiming that CO2 'vapors' had given the world a fever from a runaway, tipping point warming.
By understanding the nature of the 'been there, done that' climate, past politicians did not hysterically succumb to the likes of today's anti-science charlatans advocating the deindustrialization of America, and the hypocritical snake-oil cronies wanting to steal from the American taxpayers' wallet.
Put another way, past politicians accepted those stubborn facts of empirical science, no matter how inconvenient.
Leftists, progressives, Democrats, liberals, socialists, crony-capitalists, communists, politicians, UN bureaucrats, crony-scientists, mainstream journalists and Hollywood celebrities are acknowledged as the world's climate-porn stars, as well as being in dire need of a basic manual titled 'Climate for Dummies'...their statements regarding global warming and climate change continue to be living proof that stuck-on-stupid and cluelessness are in a constant battle to dominate the leftward thinking brain.....
Without going through a complete litany of embarrassing and moronic left-wing climate change comments by the "elites," several from the past few weeks truly stand out:
===> "The planet is running a fever and there are no emergency rooms" - Democrat Senator Markey from Massachusetts
===>"We no longer need storms or hurricanes to produce flooding - it is becoming an everyday occurrence" - Anne Burchard, the Sierra Club
===> "It's kind of like telling a little girl who's trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there's a substantial chance that she'll be killed." - MIT professor Kerry Emanuel regarding critics of his opinion that catastrophic global warming disasters are today's climate
===> "It’s time for climate-change deniers to face reality’ – ‘They’re fiddling while the planet burns" - NY Daily News editorial page
===>"MSNBC segment claims that climate change could make a real ‘Sharknado’ happen" - a Comcast-owned Obama propaganda outlet
===>"And this, to me, is the most important film [Sharknado 2] ever made about climate change. There is no film, TV thing, special anything, more important than this film." - Actor, Judah Friedlander
===> "A new report says redheads might one day be extinct...when climate change brings an end to cool mist, the climate for red hair will also disappear." - Diane Sawyer, a TV "journalist", U.S. ABC News
===>"NYU Professor: Solve climate change by making people smaller" - S. Matthew Liao, instructor of bioethics at New York University
===>"Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.” - obviously, the very "professional" CNN reporter, Bill Weir
Now, climate change comments like these have been part and parcel nonsense from the left-wing nutcases for over 100 years. As can be readily seen here, climate calamities are the 'forever' essential fear-mongering tactics used by elites and disaster-whσres to convince the public. (Additional crazed quotes from the "elites".)
More importantly, these common anti-science fear tactics are completely divorced from current climate science reality, as the empirical records demonstrate (here, here, here,here and here).
So, are the catastrophe rantings and hate emanating from liberal, progressive Democrats a result of some combination of incredible ignorance and stupendous stupidity regarding climate science?
If so, then maybe a book titled 'Climate for Dummies' would be a welcome science reading assignment for left-wing malnourished brains. Needless to say, said book should include a chapter on the science of temperature trends, made as simple as possible for those addicted to global warming calamity-porn.
Our contribution to the book will be the adjacent "Warming" Speedometer, which is a very simple visual aid to help liberal/progressive/Democrats put those really, really hard concepts of per century temperature trends into a proper context. (click on speedometer to enlarge)
For example, this simple decile infographic displays the entire range of 10-year global warming/cooling trends in per century terms since 1860. What could a climate-porn elite learn from this simple visual aid? (And help them from sounding like an uninformed idiot...)
the lowest per century trend (based on 120-month calculations) was reached during 1887
the highest per century trend was reached in 1983
the June 2014 per century trend falls into bottom half of deciles
the June 2014 trend is actually a global cooling trend
that some 31 years after the 1983 peak of 4.3°C warming trend, the temperature trend collapsed to a -0.1°C per century cooling trend.
Conclusions that a progressive/leftist elite might be able to reach from the simple "warming" speedometer of actual empirical evidence?
Hmm...let's see...that the approximate 1.5 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions (since the industrial age began) has not given Earth an accelerating fever that is causing the planet to burn - that's an unavoidable, rational and informed assessment of climate reality. And also that the world's modern climate, through June 2014, experienced a wide range of temperature trends (which are similar to the historical and ancient natural climate gyrations).
But as many have discovered to their dismay, empirical science means that liberal Democrats actually have to connect-the-dots, which apparently the climate-porn disorder prevents.
Note: Highest temperature trends (per century, based on 120-month calculations) for each decile noted on Speedometer (bottom decile also has lowest listed). HadCRUT4 global dataset used in Excel analysis. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The IPCC's climate models have been noteworthy for their unfettered pattern of prediction failure, misleading policymakers and taxpayers alike regarding global warming...predictably, the pattern of failure continues in 2014.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Multi-billions have been invested into climate science, with a special emphasis on climate models.
Despite the massive expenditures, the climate models utilized by the IPCC continue to be ginormous failures for the purpose of prediction.
The adjacent chart depicts this continuing pattern of failure by comparing the 3-year average of observed temperatures (HadCRUT4) versus the output of state-of-the-art CMIP5 models. The dataset plots reflect the most current values through June 2014.
The chart is also a testament to the unmitigated disaster of basing computer models almost exclusively on the influence of trace atmospheric gas CO2 instead of the natural climate cycles and oscillations that dominate the world of climate reality.
Climate change alarministas claim that modern human CO2 emissions are causing hotter temperatures around the world and the U.S...extreme global warming with blistering temperatures is their rallying cry but is it true?...Nope...it's another case of 'those stubborn facts'.....
(click on top or bottom chart to enlarge)
Of course, the CAGW argument has been (and continues to be) that huge CO2 emissions have produced extremely hot weather records during the 1980's, 90's and the 21st century, so far. But is it true?
Well, as pointed out earlier this year, the feared global warming is not producing the proclaimed hotter temperature records across the world.
And for the U.S.? NOAA confirms the same through June 2014. It is empirically true that the climate alarministas fear-mongering about record-setting extremes are without merit.
Case in point. This collection of charts depict NOAA's climate record frequency for maximum monthly temperatures across the contiguous U.S.
Figure #1 is the record of the 5% hottest months since 1980 in the U.S. Out of 409 months (34+ years), these 20 months represent the extreme. (The light blue data-points are the climate records since 1980 for all charts.)
Figure #2 is the 409-month record starting in 1920. These are the extreme 5% hottest months in the U.S. prior to the 1960s. (The dull red data-points are the climate records since 1920 for all charts.)
Figure #3 reveals that there have been zero months in the U.S. since 1980 that have had over 90 degree monthly averages. In contrast, the 1930's had two. In addition, for the period prior to 1980, there have been 57 months that averaged over 85 degrees while the period since 1980 there have been only 54.
Figure #4 plots the 60 hottest months for the two periods. Clearly, the pre-modern era produced hotter monthly records. These top 60 month plots represent the extreme 14.3% of each respective period.
For CO2 context, total global CO2 emissions are listed for each period (past and modern) on figures #1 and #2. The modern era emission tonnes are higher by a factor of 5+.
The evidence could not be clearer. Huge CO2 emissions, and higher atmospheric CO2 levels, do not correlate with a greater frequency of higher monthly maximum temperature records. This is indisputable.
Does this mean there won't be new record maximum temperatures set in the future? No, it does not. But, with that said, it is highly probable that future maximum records and their frequency have absolutely zero to do with greater CO2 emissions.
Note: Source of U.S. maximum monthly temperatures since 1895 (choose Maximum temperature; choose 1895 and 2014; choose Previous 12-months; choose June; click plot button; scroll down and click Excel icon to download data; in Excel, select period june 1920 thru june 1964 and period june 1980 thru june 2014 (these are the two 409-month periods used in charts);and then sort each period by largest to smallest monthly temperatures. Modern CO2 emission tonnes and past emission tonnes.
The frigid tropical hotspot continues to be a massive embarrassment to the CAGW faithful, and more importantly, the climate modelers...their prediction of a runaway tipping point in the atmosphere that would produce Venus-like temperatures is a classic example of herd-style failure by the consensus algorithms....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Two recent studies demonstrate the absolute futility of policymakers listening to climate modelers (and their billion dollar climate models) who continually predict climate calamities - a prediction record with zero successes.
The first peer reviewed study determines that today's climate models will never be able to predict the climate. Essentially, climate models assume linear climate relationships yet the real-world climate is non-linear and chaotic - defying intermediate and long-term predictive "expertise" with predictable regularity.
The second study clearly documents the abysmal prediction failure foisted on the public and politicians by the climate modelers. The climate models have long predicted a tropical hotspot in the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions; but actual scientific research reveals that the feared, mythical, runaway "tipping point" hotspot remains non-existent.
The hotspot tipping point, per the climate modelers, is supposedly in the process of turning Earth's atmosphere into a Venus replica, making Earth uninhabitable. But is that realistically happening?
The adjacent chart provides the indisputable, empirical evidence to answer that question unequivocally - NO!
The chart's red column is the Venus atmosphere's temperature at the 10km altitude. A conservative estimated temperature is still an incredibly hot 350°C.
In contrast, the chart's dark blueish columns show the Earth's atmosphere at the same altitude is an incredibly frigid temperature of minus 75C degrees. Yes, our tropical atmosphere is some 425 degrees colder.
Ahem....what freaking Venus-like tropical hotspot?! IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Of course, the climate moderlers stuck-on-stupid-Venus, don't mention this amazingly obvious climate fact. Instead, they focus on how Earth's tropical atomosphere is "accelerating" towards a Venus-like hotspot tipping point.
Accelerating? Barely creeping at a glacial pace would be more accurate.
Examine the chart closely. Since the beginning of the 1980's, humanity has poured some 860 billion CO2 tonnes into the atmosphere; atmospheric CO2 levels keep climbing (see yellow boxes); yet, the average tropical atmospheric temperature has essentially not budged (see red dotted baseline) over 3+ decades of modern consumer/industrial human emissions.
The solution to climate science reality and better policy? 'TRUST NO ONE CLIMATE MODEL' should be stamped on every CO2-centric climate model prediction and report that is handed to politicians and policymakers.
Then this type of anti-science insanity preached by the climate modelers would finally be D.O.A., never again to poison a public scientific debate with "runaway" catastrophic climate absurdities.
Note: Source of approximate 10km Venus temperature; source of approximate Earth's troposphere temperature; source of approximate tropical latitude troposphere temperatures; source of lower tropical atmosphere temperature change since 1979; source of total CO2 emission tonnes since 1979; source of peak CO2 ppm levels for each decade.
Depending on which climate alarmist "expert" you listen to, be it Al Gore, Tom Steyer, Obama, John Holdren or Michael Mann, each claims that the U.S. is suffering from CO2-caused extreme climate change...big problem though, NOAA empirical measurements of precipitation (snow and rainfall) prove those claims are nothing but blatant, political anti-science liesfalsehoods exaggerations.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
A prior 'C3' article documented the current normality of extreme drought across the globe.
With that said, the western U.S. is currently experiencing a very bad drought. If it's the start of another 200-year mega-drought, which plagued the area prior to the 1700's, there will be some very serious problems.
But for the entire U.S., NOAA reports that recent precipitation levels are normal - extreme high or low precipitation levels are not the norm.
The chart on the left is a plot of NOAA monthly measurements of precipitation since 1895, through June 2014. (NOAA dataset source) The black dots represent the moving 5-year (60-month) average of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The dark blue curve is the simple 60-month moving average of precipitation; the red line denotes the average monthly rainfall over the 1,434 months. As can be seen, the moving average is just about parked on top of the overall average - the declared current climate extremes purported by alarmists do not exist for the U.S.(nor for the globe as the prior article pointed out).
The total lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15+ years is completely counter to the CO2-based CAGW hypothesis that alarmists believe in fervently.
And what about other climate change "extremes" they hypothesize - well, the charts tell the real science story.
On this article's chart, the past extremes have been denoted (see color dots). Clearly, weather extremes can happen on a monthly basis, but they are rare, with no apparent association to CO2. Extended extreme precipitation levels over decades are literally non-existent in the NOAA climate record database.
Those Stubborn Facts: U.S. climate extremes of excess/minimal precipitation (rainfall and snow) are not evident in the recent climate record. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 causes modern precipitation extremes does not hold water, so to speak.
The latest research is conclusive, and confirms previous studies from multiple authors.
===>"The absence of trends in normalized disaster burden indicators appears to be largely consistent with the absence of trends in extreme weather events. This conclusion is more qualitative for the number of people killed. As a consequence, vulnerability is also largely stable over the period of analysis."
H/T: Roger Pielke Jr
For most CAGW skeptics, this finding is not a surprise since skeptics tend to be much more knowledgeable about past weather disasters. Previous weather disasters from the early 20th century were worse in many cases, and fully documented by the mainstream press at the time.
Conclusion: Recent weather events cannot be attributed to human CO2 emissions, nor the ongoing climate change that world is experiencing. In addition, modern climate change has not revealed itself to be "extreme." Thus, no correlation between disasters and the more recent non-extreme climate change.
Additional severe weather/disaster/climate articles.
Per the empirical measurement evidence published by NASA, the last 15 years of temperature change is not much different than earlier, pre-modern climate change...tepid to lukewarm is about the most alarmist description that fits the CO2 doomsday-cult hysteria.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
As almost everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees, climate change is continuous, accompanied by associated temperature changes. Based on the common measurement techniques utilized, over the last two decades the globe has warmed.
However, with that said, the last 15 years of global warming has really not been too impressive - so unimpressive, that scientists are debatingspeculating what happened to it.
In fact, when examining the moving 15-year temperature changes over the last two decades, the NASA research indicates (despite the gigantic modern human CO2 emissions) that pre-1950 global temperature changes were greater.
Yes, you read that right. When examining absolute 15-year changes in temperature, our modern warming doesn't quite measure-up to earlier warming.
The adjacent chart plots 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature changes (i.e. differences) of the two decades 1924-1944 (starting July 1924, ending June 1944); and plots the 180-month temperature changes of the two decades from July 1994 to June 2014.
As the chart indicates, both periods have similarities, but the greatest long-term global warming took place prior to 1950. The linear trends on the charts denote the continuing acceleration of 15-year warming (red straight line) for the pre-1950 era, versus the decelerating trend of our current times (green straight line), as reported by NASA scientists.
And, as can be observed, both the long-term warming and cooling extremes were greater during the pre-1950 decades. Confirming the pre-1950 weather/climate extremes is rather easy - just read the headlines from that era.
Conclusion: Modern climate and temperature change is somewhat tepid when compared to the natural extreme changes during the 1930s and 1940s. It would seem that human CO2 emissions are not causing unprecedented, accelerating extremes in modern weather and climate over recent 15-year spans, and may actually be dampening the extremes when compared to the past.
Note: The above chart is comparing the 2 decades ending June 1944 versus the 2 decades ending June 2014 - both periods exhibit identifiable warming. NASA dataset used for the moving 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature difference comparison and Excel chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
An analysis of NOAA's U.S. temperature dataset confirms the existence of fake climate warming that overstates actual warming by considerable amount...documentation and surprising revelations support the growing concerns by critics that U.S. climate scientists are driven by a non-science agenda.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Government bureaucrats and scientists have not exactly gone out of their way to publicize the growing use of estimated temperatures, instead of reality - actual temperature measurements.
For good reason.
Based on an examination by independent analysts, after 1990 the U.S. climate agencies chose to start replacing real-world measurements with entirely fabricated (i.e. "estimated") numbers.
Per the top chart on the left, utilization of estimated temperatures is now approaching 40%.
So, what's the problem with using NOAA's fake temperatures instead of real-world temperature measurements?
The bottom graph on the left explains the problem. The estimated temperatures produce a much greater warming trend then the actual temperature measurements.
By using estimates, government officials are able to claim bogus climate warming statistics in order to advance the scary talking points of catastrophic global warming and extreme climate change.
Deception is as simple as that, yet can be effective propaganda.
'Climate Depot' recently highlighted a ludicrous NY Daily News editorial that is the typical fear-mongering pushed by establishment elites, eargerly published by the mainstream press in regards to global warming and climate change...the editorial's commentary of "while the planet is burning" is an opinion held by a bunch of spoiled, wealthy cronies who have served their country dishonorably by ruining the American dream for future generations and, btw, continue to propose self-serving polices that will make themselves even richer...hmmm..., or instead, maybe they really are just a bunch of scientific illiterate elites who can't be bothered with those inconvenient facts, no?.....
(click on images to enlarge)
As the above paragraph suggests, it's easy to throw out rhetorical bombast in response to over-the-top CAGW doomsday B.S. - especially if the bombast is directed at wealthy elites' galactically-sized hypocrisy and crony-capitalist climate change endeavors.
By now, per the recent polling of Americans (here and here), you'd guess that the GWNs would finally forsake the rhetorical excesses as being a spectacular failed public relations campaign, but apparently not, if the NY Daily News is any indication.
Putting the bombast aside, let's continue with the analysis of those inconvenient global warming and climate change facts.
Recently, 'C3' published a few articles about the actual temperature change experienced across the globe. The key word is 'change.'
When specific temperature 'change' is examined, does it exhibit characteristics deserving of the establishment elites' commonly used fear-mongering qualifiers? Those are qualifiers meant to scare purposefully, such as: accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable, incontrovertible and etc. Or, as in the case of the wordy wordsmith elites at the NY Daily News, "while the planet burns."
The above chart on the left (Fig. A) is from this 'C3' article, which examines the 6-month absolute temperature changes derived from the state-of-the-art satellite measurement technology. Clearly, the empirical 6-month temperature changes since 1979 do not exhibit characteristics equal to the fear-monger qualifiers, let alone the hysterical, anti-science bullshît of "planet burning."
But wait.....what if the planet really was burning, per the elites' propaganda? What would accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal temperature change look like?
Well, that would be the fabricated 6-month change chart on the right (Fig. B). Using the same time period since 1979, the temperature changes plotted represent the simulated monthly temperature anomalies increasing every single month by just a tiny amount. As a result, the 6-month temperature change curve becomes a fevered-planet exponential.
That's the face of frightening global warming - an exponential precursor to the figurative "burning planet." But the real world intrudes as Fig. A is not that precursor - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
(Tip: If the actual climate temperatures ever produced a similar exponential 6-month, or a 36-month, a 60-month, a 120-month or a 180-month temperature change chart as Fig. B, then it's time for all good skeptics to move their petro-dollar funded haciendas to tropical Antarctica.)
Now, obviously, the two above charts look entirely different. And if the climate is producing accelerating, abrupt, unequivocal, irreversible, rapid, dangerous, indisputable, irrefutable and incontrovertible global warming (i.e. "planet burning") then the 6-month change chart on the right would be reality.
But the chart on the right is not reality - the chart on the left is, which presents a fairly constant up/down of temperature change, essentially negating opposing extremes. That's how the natural climate works in regards to both short-term and long-term temperature changes.
BTW, speaking of lack of extremes...to reinforce what climate reality truly is, depending on your preferred temperature dataset, there has been a non-extreme, slight global cooling trend, from a minimum of 9+ years to 17+ years . This is not some hidden science artifact that only the climate guru-clerics know about. This has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed journals and blogs for the last few years.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, the establishment's elites and mainstream media continue to publish "burning planet" falsehoods. Being completely divorced from the known climate science facts has (thank goodness) seriously undercut their credibility and trustworthiness.
Conclusions: One, the world is not "burning," with all the empirical science pointing to a globe that is experiencing a very, very modest warmingcoolingwarming cooling. Two, "liar, liar, pants on fire" doesn't quite describe the anti-science, the anti-empirical denialism, the overall dishonesty and crony-malfeasance the elites and wealthy pursue to enrich themselves by impoverishing the rest of the world.
The over-the-top predictions of catastrophic climate disaster from proponents of CAGW have become a public relations disaster for the establishment science community...the constant hyperbole about extreme climate change due to abrupt, accelerating and unequivocal global warming turns out to be without empirical, scientific merit, as the UK's recognized gold-standard global temperature dataset confirms....
(click on image to enlarge)
The lack of major hurricanes making direct landfall on the continental U.S. over the last 8+ years is a classic example of extreme climate change not happening as predicted.
Now, add to that the complete disappearance of statistically significant global warming - for the UK's HadCRUT4 there has been no statistically significant warming since October 1996; and for the RSS global atmosphere dataset, it has been since November 1992 - and one then begins to wonder about the incompetence of elite science.
The absence of climate significant warming by itself pretty much confirms that extreme climate change is a non-issue, deserving little priority and resources.
But, there is another view of extreme climate change that can be examined to ascertain whether it has become a modern era problem or not. This can be accomplished by examining simple 10-year absolute change events for global temperatures, both positive and negative.
By identifying the largest 20 warming events and 20 largest cooling events since 1850, the most extreme 2% of temperature swings can be placed in chronological significance. (This identification is best done with the IPCC's gold-standard, the UK's HadCRUT4 monthly dataset, which stretches back to 1850.)
The charts above provide the identification of these extreme, outlier temperature swings. (The May 2014 HC4 dataset contains 1,973 monthly observations from which 1,853 moving 10-year absolute change calculations can be derived.)
As is evident from the empirical data, the vast majority of extreme temperature swings (both warming and cooling) occur prior to 1960. Also, the charts' purple linear trend lines indicate that the extremes are shrinking (getting smaller, if you prefer) over time.
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions have not caused the predicted abrupt, accelerating and unequivocal global warming during the modern era, as all of the above scientific evidence attests. In addition, the lack of extreme climate change disasters and shrinking temperature swings, in relation to the past, actually indicate there may be an inverse relationship with growing CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels.
Now that would truly be mind-boggling, and help explain why "consensus" scientists are so befuddled and at a loss. Of course, stranger things have happened, such as the recent admission by consensus establishment science that they have been horribly wrong (for three decades, yikes!) about dietary cholesterol and saturated fat causing heart disease.
However, with all the above stated, this does not mean that climate change is not happening; that human activities have no influence on weather and climate; nor that global warming won't occur in the near future.
Note: UK's HadCRUT4 2014 satellite dataset used in Excel to calculate 10-year absolute (i.e. arithmetic difference) temperature changes and linear trends for above charts. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Are humans turning Earth into another Venus, an inhabitable planet with temperatures hotter than your Weber grill on the 4th of July? Well...when the empirical dots are connected the scary Venus fate for Earth goes poof....
(click on chart to enlarge)
In a previous post, empirical observations documented the lack of both short-term and long-term warming of the atmosphere.
Another approach to assessing the atmosphere's temperature change is to examine the 10-year changes in the lower troposphere. The graph on the left plots such changes.
Using a satellite dataset that contains 426 monthly temperature measurements, 306 moving 10-year changes can be calculated. This graph plots those 306 data-points (the proverbial 'dots'), plus the cumulative growth in CO2 levels over the same period.
Visually, it is obvious the 10-year temperature changes were dominated by increasing values up till the early 2000's. After that, the 10-year changes decreased consistently, turning from positive to negative. The graph depicts the global atmosphere actually cooling over recent time.
The long increase in 10-year temperature change, and then its subsequent decrease, is confirmed by both the 3-year simple average curve (aqua) and the fitted trend curve (6th order polynomial).
The pale green curve (another fitted trend curve, 6th order) represents the unabated, relentless cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Conclusion: Earth is not turning into Venus. The experts' predictions that human CO2 emissions would turn Earth's atmosphere into a simmering Venus lookalike, resulting in "boiling" oceans, is now substantiated as a crackpot, global warming bogosity - pure anti-science alarmism that was promulgated by establishment science.
Does the above mean that Earth's atmosphere will never warm again? Nope, it will indeed continue to have phases of warming and cooling just as it did in the past, sans Venus conditions, though.....because that is what climates do, just naturally.
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used in Excel to calculate 10-year temperature changes. fitted trends and 3-year average in the above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The just releasedBP Statistical Review includes an updated historical record of CO2 emissions across the world, through 2013.
While China's CO2 emissions have almost tripled since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the U.S. emissions have decreased about 2%.
That U.S. reduction actually is superior to all the world's major regions and entities, as identified by the BP research report. This U.S. reduction (see adjacent chart) took place even though the U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign the 'Protocol.'
With that said, any CO2 emission reduction by the U.S. is being immediately offset by the huge increases happening in other parts of the world. As a result, neither U.S. citizens, nor the world's, are benefiting from any U.S. CO2 reduction efforts.
To make the U.S. CO2 reduction aspirations even more bleak, if America could slash its emissions by 50% for each of the next 85 years, the net impact on global temperatures by 2100AD, at best, might be all of a measly -0.09°C.
That type of impact would require U.S. emissions to drop by some 3 billion metric tonnes per year, which based on today's technology, would likely amount to at least an annual $1 trillion expense (assumes a ludicrously low $400 per tonne cost to immediately replace all the lost fossil fuel utilization, needed new infrastructure, replacement transportation vehicles and g*d knows what else to survive).
Whether its impact is viewed from a short-term or long-term perspective, the CO2 trace gas has had little, if any, influence on the atmosphere's temperatures...satellite measurements provide the proof that the CO2-causes-global-warming hypothesis is not climate reality..... (follow up article is here)
(click on chart to enlarge)
It has been predicted by the climate "experts" that human CO2 emissions would cause the world's atmosphere to warm dangerously, producing catastrophic, world-ending climate disasters.
Some 30+ years later, the advanced satellites circling the globe, 24/7, provide the empirical evidence that the "expert" predictions were of no substance, nor merit.
The adjoining graph is a plot of short-term temperature changes since 1979, along with the cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. Specifically, the 6-month temperature changes show little, if any, impact from the continuous growth of the atmospheric trace gas, CO2. [Clarification: chart's temperature plot is a moving, full 6-month temperature difference calculated from global RSS monthly anomalies, currently 426 anomalies in dataset]
In fact, the overall trend (aqua line) of 6-month changes is actually negative - an indication that abrupt, accelerating dangerous global warming of the atmosphere is non-existent. [Clarification: Aqua line is a linear trend produced by Excel]
Now, that is the short-term. What about the long-term?
A recent study by a group of pro-catastrophic global warming scientists1 determined that the human CO2 warming influence on atmosphere temperatures would be obvious over 17-years of satellite measurements. These are the scientists who claim we have experienced catastrophic global warming, with world climate disasters being imminent.
And what has happened, over this long-term span specified by these scientists?
Over the last 204 months (that's 17 years through June 2014), the atmosphere temperatures have actually exhibited a global cooling trend, not warming. The per century trend is only a -0.36°C. Despite this small number, it still represents a cooling trend, opposite of consensus predictions.
Whether short or long-term, the state-of-the-art empirical satellite evidence is not only obvious, it is both climate and statistically significant: CO2 emissions have not had a significant influence (warming or cooling) on atmospheric temperatures.For objective science, this means that the CO2-centric anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is essentially invalidated, as it is currently understood.
(1) Study. Scientists involved: Ben D. Santer, C. Mears, C. Doutriaux, P. Caldwell, P. J. Gleckler, Tim M. L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, N. P. Gillett, D. Ivanova, Tom R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, P. A. Stott, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, F. J. Wentz
Note: RSS June 2014 satellite dataset used (finally!...updated with RSS June 2014 Excel spreadsheet), including 6-month temperature changes and Excel linear trend in the above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
The UN's IPCC claim that large modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions are causing maximum temperatures to increase across the globe proves to be without any empirical and scientific merit.....NOAA's NCDC division documents U.S. maximum temperatures are exhibiting a declining trend, not catastrophic "global warming"...
The adjacent chart is a fairly simple plot of the 20 hottest U.S. months, with the corresponding atmospheric CO2 level (black dots) for the respective month.
As the latest NOAA empirical dataset clearly indicates:
===> The hottest U.S. months took place during the 1930s, a very low CO2 period
===> The huge growth of atmospheric CO2 levels after 1949 did not produce the predicted increase of catastrophic, ever higher temperatures
===> The average maximum record temperature prior to 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1895-1949) was higher than the average maximum record temperature post 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1950-2014)
===> Despite the massive human CO2 emissions, maximum temperatures reveal a cooling trend of highs since 1950
This NOAA factual evidence for the continental U.S. confirms what has previously reported for maximum temperatures across the globe.
Note1: My bad. Found dumb error on original chart. Now corrected. No corrections to above text required.
Note2: NOAA U.S. temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Has modern human CO2 emissions caused unprecedented, irreversible and accelerating global warming? Convincingly not, per an analysis of UK's gold-standard climate research dataset...certainly, a very inconvenient climate 'FactCheck'.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Regarding claims of "irreversible" and "accelerating" global warming, the scientific empirical evidence (analysis of monthly measurements) comparisons is indisputable: over the last 15+ years, global warming has gone AWOL, which the climate "experts" are mystified about.
Ergo, modern global warming has been in a non-accelerating state, a status reversal taking place since the late 1990's.
Here and here, the scientific evidence from NOAA, when analyzed from a 5-year climate change viewpoint, clearly shows that both modern U.S. and world-wide warming are not "unprecedented" when compared to earlier 20th century periods.
Moving on to a different perspective, the adjacent chart documents that modern atmospheric CO2 levels growth was approximately 6 times greater than during that of the pre-1950 period.
Yet, this immense growth of modern emissions barely produced an uptick in 10-year global warming averages, when compared to a similar time span for the pre-1950s. This is the undeniable result of an analysis of the UK's HadCRUT4 global climate record dataset.
The difference between the two period's 10-year average increase was a trivial +0.1°C - that's well within the range of what natural climate variation could explain. If HadCRUT3 datapoints were used instead, the difference shrinks to +0.05°C.
These differences are meaningless; of no material, meaningful climate consequence; and, totally undeserving of the label "unprecedented."
Climate Change FactCheck Summation: Analyzing 1,853 datapoints of moving 10-year average global temperatures establishes there is no significant empirical evidence from the gold-standard HadCRUT4 climate records that would even suggest that modern-era warming deserves the "unprecedented" designation. Simply stated, scientists and politicians utilizing that adjective are intentionally being deceptive in order to solely advance a political agenda. Likewise, the deceptive use of the descriptors "accelerating" and "irreversible" are also not supported by any scientific evidence.
Additional information regarding the chart:
From a 10-year average global temperature low, established during November 1976, the modern warming period spanned 410 months, ending during December 2010 when the 10-year average peak occurred.
The pre-1950 (prior to the huge 'modern' consumer/industrial CO2 emissions) 10-year average temperature peaked during May 1945. Creating a similar 410-month span, establishes April 1912 as pre-1950 low point for this apple-to-apple comparison.
The atmospheric CO2 level (ppm) growth amounts depicted by the chart are based on these two 410-month periods.
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above infographic and 10-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Previously, using NOAA climate records, past U.S. warming (“global”) in the U.S. was compared to the modern U.S. warming...both warming periods were essentially the same despite the massive human CO2 emissions during the modern era…now an analysis of NOAA global temperatures reveals the same outcome…ah, those stubborn facts.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The gigantic consumer/industrial CO2 emissions during the modern era are claimed by “consensus” climate scientists to have caused rapid, accelerating, unprecedented dangerous warming, never experienced by humans before. But is this claim really true? Does climate reality support the catastrophic climate change hyperbole?
Nope. But you be the judge.
If CO2 emissions really matter, then their impact should be robustly apparent when analyzing long-term 5-year global climate warming averages. Simply stated, the differential impact from the gargantuan, modern CO2 emissions on global 5-year average warming should be significantly greater than pre-modern, natural warming for 5-year averages.
But that’s not the climate reality. Surprised?
As the adjacent graph of NOAA empirical evidence (5-year averages) reveals, the alarmists’ hyperbolic claims are without any scientific merit. The amount of modern warming (red dots) is nearly identical to the earlier 20th century warming (blue dots) that took place in the absence of large CO2 emissions.
In fact, the 381-month periods plotted in the graph have the earlier period warming to be just slightly higher (+0.01°C) than the modern warming.
To simplify, that’s totally contrary to what the UN’ IPCC and the major US and UK climate agencies have claimed and still widely promulgate.
For those more interested in the details of the chart’s plots, we move to a more complete description below…to the details!
Why was a 381-month (31.75 years) period chosen? Simple. Prior to 1950, the 5-year moving average of global temperatures peaked during October 1944. That peak was reached over a span of 381 months, from the starting trough low point of the 5-year average that occurred during February 1913. Voila, 381 months.
The modern 5-year average peak happened during January 2007. Working backwards to create a similar 381-month span, the start month for the modern period span is May 1975.
In order to produce a visual apple-to-apple comparison of the amount of warming for the two periods, the prior period’s 5-year averages were offset to start at the exactly same point as the modern warming period (‘offsetting’ the datapoints does not affect the slope of the earlier period’s warming trend, nor the amount of warming).
Although it is difficult to discern visually, as stated before, the earlier (pre-1950) 20th century warming actually was higher – a miniscule +0.01 degree higher, but still higher. That’s a freaking amazing outcome since all “experts” claim the modern era global warming was “unprecedented” and “unnatural.”
So what happens when the period span is changed to 300 months (25 years), using the same peak months as before (October 1944 and January 2007)?
It swings in favor of the modern span of warming – by incredibly the same amount of +0.01°C.
And if we used a 35-year comparison instead? OMG, modern warming just went berserk, clocking an unbelievable, higher modern warming of…wait for it…+0.07°C degree. (/sarc off)
And what if the comparison’s NOAA-benchmark was the trough-to-peak warming span of November 1976 to January 2007, a 363-month span (30.25 years)? Compared to a similar 363-month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06°C higher, which is smaller than the error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.
Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5-year average warming amounts, the modern era’s warming represents an increase not even one-tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming – it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.
What’s the essential point here?
Those stubborn facts: Well, the amount of trough-to-peak modern warming is almost identical to the amount of pre-1950 trough-to-peak warming, which is clear indication that the modern warming was likely due to the same natural influences, regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions.
Certainly, one can’t conclude that CO2 does not have some role during warming periods, but NOAA’s empirical science research indicates it is ‘best practice’ science to conclude that the vast majority of modern warming was a result of non-human reasons.
As wise old people would say: “it’s the same old, same old.”
Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
Without doubt, when straight talking the Obama and EPA climate plan being pushed by the Democrats, the 'plan's' anti-science fundamentals, the global warming absurdities and anti-consumer harm it represents come to the forefront.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Does the new Obama climate plan have any significant impact on global warming?
===> No...based on the known climate facts, if Obama's EPA plan was enacted immediately today, by 2030 (16 years from now) it would, at best, eliminate 555 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year for a total reduction of 8.8 giga-tonnes...the global temperature impact would be zero, as seen to the left.
Will the Democrats' climate plan raise energy prices for Americans, thus increasing the growing income inequality gap?
===> Yes...even the EPA estimates energy prices will increase by 6.5% due to this plan, while real-world experts estimate consumer wallet pain will increase by some $17 billion per year.
Will this zero-impact global warming initiative harm economic growth and increase the ranks of unemployed?
===> Yes...Obama's past economic policies have destroyed the middle-class job market...this proposed climate plan will now potentially eliminate another 224,000 jobs per year...this result is due to the EPA's desire to reduce coal CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030, which means that 19% of all electricity-producing capacity based on coal will have to be removed...and that represents a $50 billion negative impact on the U.S. economy, plus a huge number of jobs devastated.
Does the EPA climate plan actually stop the burning of coal worldwide and reduce total coal CO2 emissions?
===> Absolutely No...countries such as China and India will continue to build the already planned, new 1,200 coal-generation plants at a record pace, and BTW, at the same time U.S. coal producers will now export that low cost coal that Obama regulators have essentially banned in the U.S., plus the EU is proposing to finance future coal generation capacity.
Will U.S. reduction of coal CO2 emissions impact global "climate change" and severe weather events?
===> NO...As in the case of zero impact on global temperatures, this Democratic-mandated plan will do nothing in regards to climate change, per theclimate experts.
Straight-Talk Conclusion: The Obama/Democrat climate plan will not influence the global climate, nor temperatures. Increased regulations, bureaucracy, unemployment and consumer wallet pain will be unequivocal and accelerating. It's all economic cost, no climate benefit and mucho consumer pain.
Note: The above 'C3' simple calculator is based on the empirical climate records published by both the prime UK and US climate research agencies. By using their estimates of human CO2 emissions and global temperature changes since 1850, it can be estimated, by simple arithmetic, how much each metric tonne of CO2 emissions changes global temperatures. This historical, long-term relationship can be used to provide rule-of-thumb estimates of future impacts.
The political agenda of "global warming" is so important to government-sponsored scientists that massive fabrication of temperature warming is required to convince policymakers and the media.
The latest analysis (see graph) reveals the extent to which this temperature fabrication goes.
Although the actual climate records' empirical evidence shows essentially a flat temperature trend for the U.S. since 1985, NOAA has added warming "adjustments" to the historical empirical database to create a false warming trend of 1.5°F per century.
As this analysis indicates, consensus corruption of empirical science by U.S. scientists is active and robust, done with a seemingly obvious intent to deceive.
Recent quotes regarding Obama's severe weather and climate change claims:
"Obama is on record saying that climate change “once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present” and is “affecting Americans right now.”...Obama’s claim that “climate-related changes are outside of recent experience” and “have become more frequent and/or intense” is a lie from start to finish."
"Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘I am mystified as to why Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change’"
As for Obama's extreme climate change science and severe weather ignorance, he might improve his credibility if he learned how to use Google, as a due diligence practice prior to a speech, just to keep from appearing like a total idiot, no?
Once a climate clown, always a climate clown...Obama & Kerry refuse to take down the climate circus tent in the face of America's major foreign and domestic issues.....
The world is at a period of worrisome and growing critical issues, including: the Ukraine disaster; China aggression; Russian aggression, Iran's nuclear threats; Syria's self-genocide; Libya's disintegration; Egypt's continuing theocracy implosion; Nigeria and sub-Sahara's slow take-over by Al Qaeda and China; the EU's continuing decline; America's economic stagnation of more big government rules and bureaucracy; and, so on and so on.
To be sure, a long list of very serious concerns to be addressed and solved, which excludes any of this administration's current bubbling scandals, with the latest being the disgraceful VA healthcare incompetence exhibited by big government.
Yet, this White House and its administration choose to focus primary attention and its agenda on a low priority concern that is not humanly possible to stop, control or manage - that would be the farcical 'climate change' doomsday agenda.
Figuratively, Washington D.C. has become the 'town of clowns' where the climate-circus never leaves, causing loss of real purpose, influence and credibility with most Americans and the rest of the world.
Recent articles documenting this beclowning of America's ruling elite are wide and varied. A few from this week:
Instead of focusing on the imminent problems of Russia, China and Iran, Obama goes to Chicago to talk of the political-climate agenda....
Secretary of State Kerry publicly reveals ignorance about climate/weather facts and the climate science debate....
Proof hat Kerry's climate-doomsday craziness does not go unnoticed by those a lot smarter than he is....
Obama and Kerry ignore the cold, hard facts: that only a tiny minority of Americans consider environment and climate to be a top priority, instead hoping beyond that these 'D.C. clowns' might finally turn their focus on real issues that matter....
The 'Obama News Network' (i.e. CNN) bemoans that the public is not interested in the climate circus....
Fanatical, liberal, green, filthy rich, Democrat supporters of Obama and Kerry revealed by a video to be completely immoral and corrupt humans, pursing a political-climate agenda that harms America's energy and economic well-being....
America's serious foreign and domestic wounds will continue to grow and fester until the D.C. climate circus tent is folded and its principal clowns are slapped hard into reality.
Proponents of modern catasrophic global warming and extreme climate change are losing the scientific debate because actual empirical climate records do not support their speculative fears…climate facts do matter.....
(click on graphs to enlarge)
Most climate science researchers, from alarmists to skeptics, agree that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). This global LIA-rebound warming trend has also affected the U.S. continental climate.
Many experts believe that this built-in warming trend from the Little Ice Age continues, just as the post-glacial rebound due to the melting of ice sheets continues even to this day, thousands of years after the ice sheets completely disappeared.
Although there are currently no means for scientists to determine if modern warming (since 1950) is actually more a result of the continuing LIA-rebound, or of natural climate fluctuations, or due to solar/cosmic gyrations or a result of a wide variety of human influences, one can still compare the earlier warming period amount, pre-1950, to that of the modern warming. In fact, U.S. continental temperature records go back to 1895, which provides interesting evidence about U.S. climate warming.
To accomplish this comparative analysis, NOAA’s monthly temperature dataset will be utilized to construct 5-year temperature averages (60-month moving averages).
We know from NOAA’s climate records that the earlier U.S. warming topped out in December 1935 – specifically, that’s when the 5-year average temperature hit its peak. The records for 5-year averages only go back to December 1899, thus the LIA-rebound warming dataset spans 422 months for this comparison.
Likewise, the NOAA dataset finds that the modern peak of 5-year average temperatures to have taken place during January 2002. By going all the way back to November 1967, a second 422-month temperature record is produced that happens to encompass the modern era’s large influx of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., greenhouse gas).
So, we have two NOAA 5-year average temperature datasets, each spanning 422 months, with one including the temperature peak prior to the huge, modern CO2 emissions; the other being a period that represents the modern warming that has been so feared, which peaked in 2002.
How do these two periods compare, in terms of actual warming?
Well, to make the comparison an apple-to-apple comparison that is easier to visually discern, the two 5-year temperature datasets have been made to start at the exact same temperature anomaly.
Now examine the above temperature plots on the left (click on left chart to enlarge). Do you see the obvious conclusion?
After 422-months, the total modern warming greater than the pre-1950 warming period amounts to a miniscule fraction of a degree – about twelve one-hundredths of a degree (F).
Those Stubborn Climate Facts: after 35+ years, this tiny difference between the two periods is entirely within the range of natural climate variation that one could expect.
Yes, the temperature plots on the left reveal both differences and similarities in the overall warming pattern, but in the end, they almost finish in a dead heat (pun intended) regarding the amount of warming over 422 months.
Surprised? (Well, if you watch and read the mainstream press it’s likely you are very surprised.)
This actual NOAA empirical evidence is why the vast majority of climate scientists do not agree with the supposition that humans have caused all the modern warming. Clearly, most experts recognize that a very significant percentage of warming for the modern era is likely no different than the earlier period’s.
Moving onto the next comparison, how do the representative temperature changes compare after these two peaks took place? The plots on the right reveal that information.
From January 2003 to April 2014 represents 136 months, after the peak in 2002. In a similar fashion, the 136-month period after the 1935 peak ends in May 1946. The chart on the right (click to enlarge) are for both these periods, and again, these two datasets are adjusted to begin at the same temperature anomaly in order to ease visual comparison.
How do these two ‘post-peak’ periods compare?
Simply put, both the pre-1950 and modern ‘post-peak’ period exhibit a sustained cooling trend, based on the 5-year average temperatures.
The cooling patterns exhibited by both are similar in their yo-yo, up and down movements, with variation though. And the cooling amount outcomes for both trends are within three-tenths of a degree (as recently as the 110-month mark - February 2012/March 1944 - the two periods essentially match).
When the temperature patterns are examined in this manner, NOAA’s objective empirical evidence indicates that both the modern U.S. warming and cooling trends are not much different than those that took place prior to the modern immense CO2 emissions released. Based on that recognition, the empirical climate science would suggest:
The long-term warming since at least the 1800’s is a result of the rebound in temperatures from the LIA, which is still playing out in fits and starts;
Similar patterns of up/down variation exhibited by all four periods (warming, cooling, warming, cooling) are likely the direct result of primary climate oscillation/cyclical determinants;
CO2 emissions (and other trace greenhouse gases) are not a strong factor driving the observed climate variation, nor the warming phases, nor the cooling spans; and,
Regardless of reason (i.e. climate attribution), recent global warming has not produced a “dangerous” 5-year warming span that is significantly different than past periods “dangerous” warming in the U.S.
The fact of Earth’s current extended “global warming” pause is a strong indication that points 1 and 2 above hold sway as the driving forces, not #3.
Finally, the NOAA climate records are not kind to the CAGW claims, which has had predictable results by its proponents as they lose the scientific debate. As a result, climate-doomsday scientists are now resorting to some very ugly, anti-scientific tactics.
This past week of alarmism tactics just witnessed a new round of climate science ugliness (read here and here) that harkens back to the totalitarian/authoritarian regime tactics under Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Both articles list names of the usual GWN suspects who perpetuate this ugly form of climate "science."
Note: NOAA U.S. temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too!. Go here to learn how.
This is also true for the continental U.S. temperatures during the 21st century, though, with an obvious difference. As the adjacent chart reveals, the U.S. temperatures exhibit an actual cooling trend - actually opposite of the rapid, dangerous, "scorching" climate that the White House and some propagandistsliars journalists report.
Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2°F per century rate.
It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient.
Note: Excel used to produce chart, averages and linear trend. NOAA temperature dataset used can be downloaded from this site.
The global warming, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it fiasco is unraveling as the mountain of climate empirical evidence undercuts the CAGW McCarthyism-demagoguery...NOAA measurements confirms a 20-year cooling trend for U.S.....
(click on images to enlarge)
Al Gore is at it again, demonizing Republicans and the GOP for their resistance to accepting Al's global warming "science."
However, as the NOAA/NCDC chart depicts on the left, for the 6-month periods ending April, Al's mythical "undeniable" global warming trend has been literally non-existent. Instead, despite the huge CO2 emissions, the U.S. has been experiencing a 20-year cooling trend of -1.5°F per century.
Yes, that's 20 years of climate reality that exposes the ludicrous climate doomsday predictions that Gore has been spouting for 20 years. (For additional temperature/climate charts, go here.)
Of course, the American public and critics have not been very receptive to the "elites" global warming doomsday-cult, so Gore and his alarmist disciples turn to McCarthy-style tactics to demonize opponents. For more information on the recent use of those ugly tactics, read here, here and here.
Note: Again, the above chart is for 6-month periods ending April. A plot of all 216 months (18 years) ending April 2014 reveals a slight cooling trend for the U.S.; both the 19 and 20 year periods show the U.S. with a slight warming trend but well below the Gorian prediction of disatrous warming levels.
The "consensus" climate science community has turned on one of its own, using practices that would make Sen. Joe McCarthy proud.
[An update on McCarthy-like bully tactics embraced by climate scientists.]
McCarthy made a habit of intimidating, abusing, smearing and threatening others who were opponents (full explanation of the demagoguery evil referred to as 'McCarthyism'). And various subsequent senators have filled his shoes admirably.
Emboldened by the techniques used very publicly by the "elite" leaders of America, the "97%" climate science community have chosen to do the same.
Their latest victim is climate scientist who wanted to speak honestly about his science. But he became a scientist who took a step too far - he challenged the ideology of the "consensus." Thus, he had to be intimidated to reform, ASAP.
To learn more about the McCarthy tactics used against scientist Lennart Bengtsson, read here, here, here, here, here and here.
Mother Jones magazine and Chris Mooney provide further proof that the alarmism of greens and the fringe left/progressive/liberal extreme of American politics is a cornucopia of anti-science, falsehoods and misrepresentation...Catastrophic Global Warming Derangement Syndrome (CGWDS) victims have become a national embarrassment and tragedy, no?.....
(click on top images left #1 & right #2 to enlarge)
(click on bottom images left #3 & right #4 to enlarge)
Actual climate science and empirical evidence has long been the enemy of the green/left/Democrat consortium being funded by Obama's crony-donor billionaire friends. A classic example of their littering the editing floor with scientific truth can be found in this recentMother Jones article.
The top/left 'image #1' comes straight from the 'MJ' article and it immediately sets off one's B.S. detector.
Vast portions of the U.S. have just made it through a brutal winter and a cold, wet spring, yet Mother Jones is talking global warming "scorching"? In fact, after 30 years of gigantic CO2 emissions, the first four months of 2014 temperatures in the U.S. were, on average, -0.26 degree lower than those of January, February, March and April during 1984.
Yep, 30 years later the U.S. was cooler - as pseudo-journalist Chris Mooney would say: "It's about our scarcely recognizable present"
In determining where this Mother Jones pile of B.S. was leading, a closer scrutiny of the 'image #1' reveals that it is a temperature map for the last 22 years.
Whoa, 22 years!? WTF?
Honestly, what objective, impartial person interested in the empirical-based science would pick a 22-year snapshot as the sole climate representation of the U.S. with no other context? What major publication would publish such a temperature map without at least also showing what has happened to U.S temperatures since 1996?
Can you quickly say "amazingly, ludicrous, cherry-picking misinformation" three times in a row? It's safe to say Chris Mooney and Mother Jones can.
So, what would cause those brainy "elites," who suffer from an obvious CGWDS affliction, to basically misrepresent the climate as it is being experienced today, but instead focus on a specific 22-year period? Why not present the readers with multiple-period maps and graphs that provides a contextual full picture of reality?
Well, image #2 (top/right) provides the ready answer to their ludicrous cherry-picking deception.
Turns out that the 22-year period ending March 2014 had the highest per century rate of U.S. warming when analyzing multiple time periods. Yet, as the American public is well aware, the previous U.S. warming trend that generated that unique 22-year peak has since morphed into a cooling phase since 1996 - ahem...now look at all those negative blue bars in image #2 starting with the last 18 years.
Adding even more proof that the U.S. is not suffering from "scorching" global warming deception, images #3 and #4 reveal NOAA's climate reality for 1992 (22 years ago) and 2014, respectively.
How about that! NOAA, the principal U.S. climate research agency, reports that the U.S. recently experienced an actual cooler climate than that of 1992 (22 years ago).
Gee, why would Chris Mooney and Mother Jones leave important empirical evidence context like this out of their "scorching" article? Hmmm...makes one wonder if they purposefully want their readers to think they are liars; or maybe they think the readers of 'MJ' are just incredibly gullible and/or common sense stupid. Who knows?
For additional scientific context missing in the Mooney climate-doomsday article, go here, here, here, here and here.
Oh...and those "Seven Scary Facts About The Global Left & Greens":
1. they start with the initial bullshÎt;
2. then they sprinkle some more bullshÎt here and there and everywhere;
3. they advance their agenda by rapidly accelerating the bullshÎt spreading with over-the-top hyperbole;
4. they then deny their bullshÎttÎng when all the scary predictions fail;
5. then they claim they were misunderstood and really did not mean their previous bullshÎt to be literal;
6. they then introduce multiple new theories as to why some new bullshÎt should be believed, ignoring the fact all their previous bullshÎt was completely wrong;
and #7, hey, they finally state that you're a racist, Gaia-hating, homophobic, paid-by-the-Koch-brothers denier if you no longer believe all of their anti-science, doomsday bullshÎt.
Indeed, it's never ending CGWDS bullshÎt combined with crazy-person denial - similar to the famed Black Knight's relentless denial, despite his obvious and indisputable shortcomings.
If wild-assed guesses and purposeful doomsday, fear-mongering claims are the "new science" gold standard, then Obama's 'National Climate Assessment' report must be a winner, no?.....well, it's at least deserving of 5-Pinoccio gold stars for anti-science propaganda...
(click on image to enlarge)
The 2014 climate-doomsday assessment report recently issued by the White House and Democrat cronies has not been well received by actual climate scientists.
The report is a compilation of every scary climate prophecy imaginable, most of which are highly speculative with little, if any, likelihood of happening.
Ahem.....yes, Virginia, you are more likely of being struck by lightening exactly between the eyeballs than suffering through any of the Democrats' climate doomsday scenarios.
Besides the White House's extreme scare-mongering, the report's credibility is also D.O.A. due to its blatant falsehood regarding "CO2-caused" warming of the globe and the U.S.
===> "The government’s newest national assessment of climate change declares that increased global warming is affecting every part of the United States."
From a vast array of empirical reports (here and here), recent research and widely disseminated media reports, it has been well verified that the "expert" predicted accelerating freight train of dangerous global warming has been stopped cold in its tracks.
Obama's assessment: it completely ignores this major climate reality that so dramatically differs from the previous global warming alarmism speculations.
And the actual scientific truth about global temperature change is not difficult to determine, since all it takes to analyze temperatures is to download the NOAA/NASA satellite temperature datasets and then plot the measurements using Microsoft Excel.
That is what has been done in producing the accompanying charts.
The top graph plots the changes in tropical oceans (a latitude range of -20 to +20); the tropical atmosphere (a latitude range of -20 to +20); and the continental U.S.
Obviously, since 1996, the last 18 years has witnessed its normal wide variation in temperature swings but the overall linear trends are cooling for all three datasets, NOT WARMING as predicted.
The bottom chart represents the moving 5-year averages of all three of the same datasets, plus the moving 5-year average of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm). Clearly, the huge growth in CO2 levels has had zero global warming impact on the 5-year temperature change over the last 18 years, contrary to the Democrats' "consensus" predictions.
This actual empirical evidence devastates the White House claim that Earth is becoming Venus-like, where CO2 causes the tropical atmosphere to develop incredible hotspots, which then produces a boiling-off of sea water, starting with the tropical oceans. As can be seen here, this is the entire "scientific" basis of the Democrats' extreme climate change, doomsday predictions.
Doomsday predictions that do not comport with any known climate reality on Earth (again, view above graphs).
Unfortunately, reality has not kept this White House from misleading Americans on a wide range of issues, including Obamacare; the Benghazi terrorism attack; the IRS politicization; the NSA's illegal spying on Americans; the Operation 'Fast & Furious' fiasco; and etc.
Thus, Obama's climate assessment report utilizes the same lie-at-all-costs tactics as the previous instances. This report is just another attempt to bamboozle the public.
"5 reasons voters don’t believe the White House about global warming: OVERREACH, HYPOCRISY, AGENDA-DRIVEN, UNILATERAL, NOT CREDIBLE" - that's how the Washington Post assesses Obama's assessment.
And of course, when this latest fear-report fails to convince the public, the liberals' anti-science approach will then embrace other tried and true "professional" tactics - like this.
Note: Yes, you too can do your own empirical analysis - download datasets used in Excel to produce above charts, linear trends and moving averages. Btw, U.S. April anomaly used was an estimate (included in the download). Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.
Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.
Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?
"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."
Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.
WUWT produces another example of the elite establishments' propaganda promoting bogus climate change alarmism. There is little, if any, empirical evidence of the climate refugee claim, unless one actually believes the output of egregiously error-prone climate computer models.
Instead of educating its readers about global warming reality, the Smithsonian delivers typically lame press release "science," enhanced with hyperbolic statements, which have been thoroughly debunked in the past.
Personally, I canceled my Smithsonian subscription over a decade ago after tiring from their constant anti-empirical, political-agenda science. But for those who still do subscribe, one might want to keep this infograph handy to help spot the magazine's bogus claims and bad science reporting.
For your added pleasure, obvious additional speculative hyperbole from the magazine:
====> "Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender...Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes...Even people who don’t have to move will experience a bewildering sense of dislocation as the environment changes around them—as Northern winters start to be measured in weeks rather than months."
The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.
Whether the "experts" are the IPCC's climate models or associated scientists, their climate predictions for Northern Hemisphere snow extent, i.e., square kilometer coverage, have been robustly wrong...
(click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC has become globally infamous for their atrocious climate change, global warming predictions (read brief summary).
There are multiple examples of the up-to-date empirical evidence confirming that the IPCC's doomsday climate predictions are without merit - here, here, here and here are just a few examples.
And at the close of March 2014, it is now possible to compare the latest empirical evidence versus the IPCC "expert" prediction that human CO2 emissions would severely reduce snow coverage across the Northern Hemisphere during winter months (December, January, February and March).
As this accompanying chart obviously indicates, snow extent has actually increased over the short term (see 3-year average curve); and since the beginning of the dataset, winter snows have ranged within a narrow band.
During any given year's winter, there are periods of extremely large snow extent, soon to be followed by low extremes. This natural variation occurs despite the growing surge of CO2 emissions, as denoted by the methodically increasing black step-curve.
For many regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the past several winters since 2007 have witnessed brutal winters of extreme snow and cold, which the upsurge of the chart's 3-year average curve corroborates. As additional corraboration, there is the actual global sea ice growth that also mocks the "expert" IPCC predictions.
Addtional severe-weather articles and charts. Chronological list of severe weather/climate events.
Note: Datasets used to plot Excel chart: snow and CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Like the UN, the IPCC is a political organization that seemingly has a primary objective of misleading the public and policymakers about climate science. Another example of such behavior is.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable - essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased.
Those are the stubborn facts that the adjacent chart reveals as unequivocal.
Yet, because of the political-driven agenda the IPCC pursues, their latest report states that the world's food production would be more "secure" if CO2 emissions were reduced. Hmm...the exact opposite of known scientific fact.
"There, it can be seen that enriching the air with CO2 almost always leads to significant increases in the photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all of the world's major food crops. And as for the highly-unlikely increase in global temperature that the world's climate alarmists predict to result from projected increases in the air's CO2 content, there are also many studies that reveal the positive consequences of warming for agriculture in Earth's cooler high-latitude regions, such as the recent study of Meng et al. (2014) dealing with maize production in the northern reaches of China. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it..."
"Yet the primary efforts of both of these entities [Ed. the UN's IPCC and the UNFCCC] have been, and continue to be, directed against that which is most needed to produce the required amount food, as they both argue for reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which comprise much of the aerial "food" that sustains all of our food crops."
Truth be told, the headline of this post is not an IPCC quote but obviously it represents what the IPCC is attempting to convince the public of, and unfortunately, the real-world, objective science does not support it in the least.
Summary: The IPCC's fundamental lies continue to establish the blatant anti-science which permeates the entire UN's climate "research" reporting - it's propaganda spin all the way down.
Additional 'C3' charts that challenge the IPCC's anti-science. Note: NOAA CO2 levels on above chart have been super-imposed on the original found here.
Latest peer reviewed research determines that recent sea level rise along the coasts of northern Europe and the English Channel are within historical bounds experienced during the 19th and earlier 20th century periods.
Per the scientists from Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the actual empirical evidence points to a potential sea level rise by 2050 AD of 2.1 inches for the North Sea coast and 1.6 inches for the English Channel.
"In light of the findings of the international team of scientists participating in this significant study, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the rate of sea level rise throughout both the North Sea and the rest of the Global Ocean over the entire CO2-emitting course of the Industrial Revolution."
In summary, this study does not support the irrational, unsubstantiated current claims and predictions of sea level increases made by prominent GWN's who rely on projections from the discredited climate models. The recent and past sea level increase facts reveal the totally absurd and irresponsible, anti-science speculations of 36 to 120 inch rise for coastal waters.
What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.
The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.
The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).
Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.
Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.
Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?
The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...
(click on image to enlarge)
Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.
And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.
====> "Here we present[Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."
Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.
This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.
Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.
First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.
Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.
That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?
The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero.
Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)
Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).
What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?
Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.
Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?
Ahhh.....those stubborn facts. The "consensus" climate science "experts" have been constantly bedeviled by the empirical climate reality, such as this...
(click on chart to enlarge)
NOAA's empirical evidence does not lie, nor deny. Over the last 205 months (Feb. 1, 1997 thru Feb. 28, 2014), the continental U.S. has cooled at a per century rate of -0.96°C.
This has taken place despite the assurance of almost every taxpayer-funded climate scientist that the exact opposite would happen.
They told us that their powerful and sophisticated computer climate models could accurately predict what future climate conditions we would experience.
Except they were spectacularly wrong from day one; and yet, they kept spending multi-billions of taxpayer funds by throwing it down this failed climate research rabbit hole.
Why were the "experts" and the computer simulations so, so wrong?
From a recent essay about this gigantic and embarrassing failure by government scientists, we learn:
"Realities about climate models are much more prosaic. They don’t and can’t work because data, knowledge of atmospheric, oceanographic, and extraterrestrial mechanisms, and computer capacity are all totally inadequate. Computer climate models are a waste of time and money...Inadequacies are confirmed by the complete failure of all forecasts, predictions, projections, prognostications, or whatever they call them."
On average, it's been estimated that a plastic bag weighs 32.5 grams (for the record, a typical grocery store plastic bag weighs only 5 grams). And its been estimated that a plastic bag at the average weight represents about 200 grams of CO2 (when accounting for the plastic bag's production and eventual incineration).
As a result, via simple multiplication, those 100 billion plastic bags equal 20 trillion grams of CO2, which converts to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2.
Sooo.....what's the plastic bag impact on global warming from 20 million tonnes/year of CO2 over the next 20 years?
Well, it's squat, too. There is no warming impact, which makes the Democrats' claim more anti-science propaganda of the quackery sort.
Banning plastic bags due to their climate change impact is sheer nonsense, but banning them for other environmental reasons is a whole 'nuther issue.
The global warming impact calculation can be accomplished with the 'C3' simple estimator found here and just enter the CO2 tonnes amount desired. (Note: The image above is only a replica of the real tool.)
For comparison purposes, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a global warming nothing-burger.
These smiling Democrat senators recently held a "climate change" sleepover at the Capitol that was a rather blatant attempt to please their billionaire-crony donors.
Instead of accomplishing anything meaningful, the low-watt Democrats justifiably received a heavy round of mockery from all sorts of Americans.
The Democrats' climate science has now been in quack mode for an extended period.
An example of the economic harm imposed by this type of anti-science quackery was a legislative victory for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate during 2007 when the "Energy Independence and Security Act" was passed. This 'Act' effectively banned the future purchase of incandescent light bulbs by Americans.
Since the beginning of 2014, those desired, cheap light bulbs have been difficult to find. And it's completely due to the quack anti-science that Democrats believe.
This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.
Thus, they have forced every American to buy more expensive lighting replacements instead of the old, reliably pleasing and inexpensive incandescent technology.
Democrats did this in the name of "science." But as was the case with their recent anti-science climate-pajama party, factual science was pretty much AWOL in the war on light bulbs.
So, what does the indisputable, factual science tell us about the global warming impact of keeping incandescent light bulbs out of the hands of Americans?
Simply put: It is squat - there is zero impact by doing so.
The science is actually pretty straightforward. First, Americans buy some 2 billion bulbs per year. Per the EPA, if each incandescent bulb purchased were replaced instead with an energy efficient CFL bulb purchase, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.0382 metric tonnes. So, two billion bulbs per year times 0.0382 tonnes totals to a yearly CO2 reduction of 76,400,000 tonnes.
Sounds impressive, no?
Well, in the scheme of things that are climate significant, it's not. As the real science dictates, by the end of the next 20 years the yearly CO2 reduction of 76 million plus tonnes will have zero impact on global temperatures. (And that's to the second decimal place.)
Let's do the math (or you can just use this 'C3' estimator whose replica is displayed below the Democrats' photo-op image): We know from the empirical evidence that since 1850 the Earth has warmed a +0.85 Celsius degree while humans have emitted approximately 1.4 trillion tonnes of CO2. As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01°C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.
How's that figure compare to the tonnes saved over 20 years by replacing 40 billion light bulbs? (BTW, it's highly likely there a lot fewer than 40 billion to be replaced.) All those incandescent light bulb CO2 savings would amount to only one-tenth the required 16+ billion tonnes.
And that then means all the CO2 savings would amount to no measurable global temperature impact. Hmmm...did we say 'squat' yet?
Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing-significant outcome for the climate.
That's a climate factcheck.
Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor-cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate-impact substance.
Per NOAA's published annual mean temperatures, the modern warming trend for the U.S., since the beginning of 1950, amounts to an increase of 1.35°C by century end.
But this modern trend is just +0.36° higher than the trend that existed from 1895 to 1949. For the records, that existing pre-consumer/industrial CO2 trend was already at a significant +0.99°C, by year 2100.
Based on the official climate empirical evidence, as the adjacent chart depicts, this recent measly trend increase (a third of a single degree) of climate change (i.e. U.S. warming) is claimed by IPCC scientists to be a result of the modern, gigantic global emissions approximating over 1.2 trillion tonnes since the end of 1949
Yet, the prior period to the modern era experienced a climate change trend that was equivalent to a 1-degree change. Essentially, a built-in, long-term trend some 3-times larger than the additional modern trend increase.
And this larger, pre-modern, in-the-pipeline warming trend took place when human CO2 emissions were a fraction of the modern era's - literally, one-tenth the amount of emissions (see chart).
Then there is the whole embarrassing issue of the great climate science mystery, which includes the U.S. climate records. During the last 17 years that span from February 1997 through February 2014, the continental U.S. actually cooled at a per century rate of -1.0°C (per NOAA's monthly anomalies).
Now what does all this empirical evidence mean?
Well, obviously, the pre-1950 climate change was significantly greater than that of the modern era. Again, obviously, the modern U.S. climate change has been way over-hyped by politicians and government scientists when put into a historical perspective, as above.
Then there is the indisputable NOAA fact that the last 17 years have witnessed a general cooling for the U.S., which, obviously, is at substantial odds with the "consensus" climate scientists predictions and the IPCC's "expert" computer models.
When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very "global" or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.
"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.
In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.
As this article describes, new scientific studies have recently been published, strongly indicating that both a long-term and short-term sensitivities are significantly lower than the failed assumptions of the IPCC.
The new research, depending on the time-frame chosen, indicates empirically-based climate sensitivity ranging from +1.0°C to +2.9°C.
Using the above 'C3' tool to estimate different global warming outcomes dependent of climate sensitivity chosen, it can be determined that if this century's climate sensitivity is closer to the '+1.5' the new studies suggest, then the global temperature impact would be a very modest +0.52°C - clearly, not the over-the-top +6 or more degree possibilities tossed about by many "consensus" scientists.
Note: To use the 'C3' global temperature estimator, click on the above image. Input your preferred variable data into the yellow boxes and press 'Enter' or 'Tab' key. Additional 'C3' tools.
An analysis of satellite temperature dataset, through February 2014, identifies only two 5-year periods having significant warming and five periods that exhibit either zero warming or cooling.....the consensus experts' predicted reaction, by the climate, to a surge of human CO2 emissions is not supported by empirical evidence
(click on chart to enlarge)
The adjacent chart clearly depicts the lack of the predicted global warming since the decade of the 1990s.
Utilizing a straight-forward, empirical analysis of the RSS satellite temperature dataset reveals a rather tenuous (non-existent?) relationship between global atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions.
As the chart suggests, a brief global warming spike has morphed into an extended global cooling phase, which the consensus experts have identified as 'the mysterious global-warming hiatus'; plus being forced to trot-out a wild variety of excuses as to why their AGW predictions have failed.
Unfortunately, the GWNs, and their compatriots in the green climate-doomsday-is-near cult, continue to reject the actual scientific empirical evidence, such as the above chart.
Download datasets used to calculate the five-year change (starting base month is February 1979) of RSS atmospheric temperatures; cumulative CO2 emission tonnes, from 1979 through 2013. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
The dual embarrassments of the non-predicted global warming 'Pause' and the spectacular, abject failures of the wildly expensive climate models has resulted in the "experts" producing a multitude of excuses as to why the infamous AGW/CO2 hypothesis has failed, again and again....
(click on image to enlarge)
So, Watts Up With That uses this image along with an article delineating the excuses given so far for the 'Pause' and failures of the inaccurate climate models.
The list currently stands at a 10-count. But it's very likely to go higher in the near future, no?
#10. Low solar activity means less warming
#9. Warming is "hiding" in the deepest realms of the world's oceans
#8. Pollutants from Chinese coal burning blocked the warming
#7. The unintended consequences of Montreal Protocol for ozone has slowed warming
#6. Too few Arctic weather stations are reporting the predicted warming
#5.Major Minor volcanic eruptions somehow are now blocking warming
#4. Unexpected decrease of water vapor in the stratosphere slows global warming trend
#3. The changing, anti-warming Pacific's trade winds not anticipated in global climate change models
#2. Climate signals from stadium wave phenomenon interrupted predicted global warming pattern
#1. Leading government climate "experts" put it all down as "coincidence"
Now this list provides overwhelming evidence that consensus climate scientists and major government climate agencies agree this extended 'Pause' took place and continues.
Yet despite this scientific agreement, there are still those fanatical GWNs who continue to push the jihad of anti-science, scaremongering propaganda ... along with an overabundance of extremist threats.