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.
Another new study by climate "experts" produces even more speculation as to why the modern global warming 'Pause' has unexpectedly happened ... in the meantime, per NOAA.......
(click on chart to enlarge)
(click on chart to enlarge)
The never predicted 'Pause' has no equal as the chart on the left begins to suggest. This chart is a plot of total temperature anomaly differences (i.e. total monthly change, month by month) since February 1998 through December 2013.
NOAA's year-end 2013 published monthly temperature dataset has identified February 1998 as the highest temperature anomaly month ever. And as the chart indicates, for the subsequent 190 months, that 1998 peak was never topped, despite an average 29.5 billion new tons of CO2 emissions per year over that time span.
Since the modern era beginning with the 1950s, that 190-month stretch is the longest uninterrupted "pause" - simply, this is unprecedented since the era of vast consumer/industrial CO2 emissions commenced.
In contrast, the earlier 190-month period ending February 1998 experienced an almost continuous climb of higher and higher temperature changes, culminating in the early 1998 peak.
This steady climb was supposedly the sole result of the growth of new CO2 emissions (this periods emissions actually averaged some 30% less than the subsequent 190-month period ending in 2013).
Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate "experts," and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.
And like so many experts in so many other science fields, the IPCC climate wonks were wrong, spectacularly. It now stands at 190 months of prediction failure!
Surprised? If yes, review previous of 'those-stubborn-facts' charts here and here.
Note: How calculations were done: For the 190 months ending December 2013 (left chart), the February 1998 anomaly was the base point. The anomaly difference from this base was calculated for each subsequent month. No calculated difference during the 190 months was greater than -0.0001. Similar difference calculations were made for the 190-month period ending February 1998 (see rightmost chart), with that period's base point being April 1982.
Download NOAA 2013 year-end global monthly dataset used for difference calculations and plots (NOAA changes all historical data points for each new month's dataset, so 'C3' will retain this 2013 dataset for the near future). CO2 emission dataset can be downloaded here. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Proponents of the CAGW gloom and doom disaster scenarios often say that we need to "connect the dots" to understand how CO2 emissions are causing dangerous "accelerated" global warming.
Of course, these alarmists hope no one will actually "connect the dots," which is the almost guaranteed case for mainstream science journalists, TV pundits, politicians and Hollywood celebrities - those icons of mental laziness and politically correct thinking.
But what happens when one does actually connect-the-dots?
Well, the real world climate reality is then discovered: global warming has stalled and global cooling trends are appearing (see the UK and the US), confirmed by the scientific empirical evidence.
This adjacent chart for the global temperature trends (using the HC4 temperature dataset published by the UK's premier climate research agency) provides compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are not producing disastrous global warming trends.
As the chart reveals, today's per century trends are dominated by cooling for the different time periods; today's trends are multiple times below prior period, historical highs; the 5, 8 and 10-year trends are definitely below the average modern trend (1950 through 2013); and all the trends are significantly less than those reached 15 years ago (see black dotted lines for year-end 1998 trend levels).
As an aside, in the future, as the 15-year trend moves further and further from the persistent temperature impacts of 1997 and 1998, it too will likely become a negative trend.
None of today's trends even approach the IPCC's predicted trend range of 2 to 6 degrees (C) per century that its "experts" and climate models told us long ago were being experienced (unfortunately, they mistook the natural climate's super El Niño's huge impact during 1997/98 as confirmation of CO2-induced warming).
As readily apparent, because of natural climate feedback forces, yesterday's over-hyped accelerated warming (eg, 1998) can quickly reverse course, delivering robust deceleration and even global cooling.
And that's what one learns from the empirical climate science when the "dots" are truly connected.
More of that connect-the-dot style of climate science reality: modern global and regional temperature charts.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate moving 5-year, 8-year, 10-year and 15-year per century trends (ie, slopes), chart column bars and line curve. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over recent decades, there have been many false claims, misrepresentations and untruths regarding climate change and global warming.
Unfortunately, these deceptions are commonly void of any empirical merit, pernicious in nature and stubbornly deep-seated, often held dear by the world's establishment elites. Typical of false claims held dear include: global warming is "accelerating"; "runaway" global warming is at a "tipping point"; and that the greenhouse gas CO2 is a "control knob" or "thermostat" for Earth's climate.
With an air of authority and trust, agenda-driven, white-coat scientists can make these fictions sound entirely plausible, especially to the incredibly gullible establishment elites. However, these falsehoods rarely can survive even the simplest climate 'factchecks,' which apparently are beyond the intellectual capabilities of most elites.
Case in point, examine the accompanying chart carefully. (click on to enlarge)
Using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2, one can plot the per century warming/cooling trends on a monthly basis going back to 1850. Utilizing the easy-to-use plotting and calculation tools of Microsoft's Excel, it is simple to compare the empirical temperature trends of climate reality with the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels.
What do these empirical climate records actually reveal?
===> That acceleration of cooling and warming happen with great frequency, then always followed with an inevitable deceleration - "accelerating" warming (nor cooling) persists
===> That the different period cooling/warming trends exist in narrow to wider bands over the total instrumental temperature record
===> That the 10-year trends (cyan) have a narrower ban than the 5-year trends (purple); the 5-year trends have a narrower band than the 3-year trends (green); the 3-year trends have a narrower band than the 2-year trends (blue); and finally, the 2-year trends have a narrower band than the 12-month (one year, red) band
===> The 1-year trends (moving 12-month) reach the greatest extremes, with excesses coming close to either a cooling trend of minus 80 degrees per century or a plus 80 degrees warming trend per century - amazingly, within a few years of each other
===> The greatest warming (acceleration) trends ever recorded took place during the 1870s; the largest cooling trends occurred during the late 1870s and early 1880s.
===> The highest 10-year warming trend (briefly at 4.14°C/century) happened in 1983, well in advance of the highest CO2 atmospheric levels achieved during the 1990s and the 2000s
===> The 2013 year-end per century trends (note the color arrows on chart's right axis) are well below previous warming trends
===> Although the 1-year moving trends in the distant past have approached both extremely high and cold temperature rates, the natural climate reactions then produced reversing course corrections (i.e. nature responds to extremes by avoiding long-term "runaway" and "tipping point" conditions)
===> The future climate will continiue to exhibit high natural acceleration and deceleration for both cooling and warming, guaranteed
===> The continuous growth of cumulative CO2 emissions over the entire span since 1850 has likely zero correlation with the constant acceleration/deceleration of natural climate temperature trends - CO2's impact on the trends is demonstrably minimal
===> The immense increase of CO2 levels (110ppm) since 1850 has not produced any trend peak, nor trough, during the post-WWII era that could be even remotely construed as "unprecedented" or "runaway" or a "tipping point" condition (with the possible exception being the 1-year cooling trend trough reached during the 1970s)
===> Simply put (which is blatantly obvious from the empirical evidence), human CO2 emissions or total CO2 atmospheric levels are not the "control knob"/"thermostat" that the white-coat, agenda-driven scientists say they can manipulate to manage the globe's temperatures.
Prior to the immense post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, the world was warming, which peaked in the year 1944 (see chart).
The total pre-modern temperature increase to an identified peak (Sept. 1944) was +0.55°C, using the 12-month mean for year 1850 as the starting point.
Since the end of 1944 though, the modern era warming only added another +0.40°C on top of the 1944 peak, based on the high point for the rolling 12-month average, which was reached in mid-1998 (Aug. 1998).
With all the doom and gloom of global warming alarmism, this unexpected truth of modern global warming being less than the pre-modern era is an indicator that man-made catastrophe is not just around the corner. And this good news comes to us from the IPCC's own gold-standard for temperature observations - the UK's HadCRUT4 global dataset.
Also, the above chart of the 12-month means clearly shows a climate that moves from cooling to warming phases, and then back - a natural oscillation that 'catastrophic global warming' skeptics have long discussed, while being dismissed by the IPCC and its cohorts.
Keeping the observed oscillation in mind, the last significant warming ended with a peak in 1998 (the peak during 2010 was a very close second) and temperatures have since paused. Recently, this natural climate oscillation has been identified (by none other than the premier science journal Nature) as a potential cause of the 'Pause' that is generating such befuddlement for the "consensus" climate experts.
Not only has there been a very noticeable pause, since late 2001 there has been an actual cooling of global temperatures, which is noted on the chart with a light blue text box. As for the 12-month 2013 mean, it represents a slight temperature drop of -0.09°C since the 1998 peak (another case of those-stubborn-facts).
Understand, this chart does not explain the amount of any given warming/cooling that is due to either nature or humans, respectively. Nor does it tell us how long the 'Pause' will last or which direction temperatures will take after the stall. Some experts say temperatures will surely fall, while others claim that warming is hiding in the ocean deeps just waiting to climb out - your choice as to which view is correct.
The chart does suggest however that unpredictable temperature movements and climate change will happen regardless of CO2 levels and any human actions.
Finally, many CAGW alarmists predict that global temperatures will jump some 6 degrees by year 2100AD with a doubling of CO2. This chart's axes have been set to provide that context. Per the empirical history since 1850 and the recent global cooling, the 2100AD temp is much more likely to reflect the established +0.47°C per century trend...one thinks.
For those sharp-eyed readers, the chart title has slightly different temperature increase numbers than this article's text. The chart increases are based on the year-end that the peak temperatures took place; the increases used in the text are based on the actual month/year the 12-month mean peak happened.
Note: Excel was used to calculate the 12-month rolling means and plot the data. Used the HadCRUT4 dataset; the post-1958 CO2 dataset; and the pre-1958 CO2 dataset (divided annual ppm levels by 12). Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Other IPCC consensus "experts" are wildly throwing around a hodgepodge of reasons that at last count was up to eight. Take your pick.
One reason definitely not on the table for discussion by climate reality deniers resisters is the obvious one: increasing CO2 levels are having little impact on global temperatures, which means that nature's normal climate forces overwhelm any CO2 influence. For the consensus scientists to open this can-of-worms would be the death knell of the AGW hypothesis - scientists driven by greed and the limelight do not willingly eviscerate the golden ox that has produced multi-billions for research grants and scientific studies.
Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.
This obvious climate reality is portrayed in the above chart. Literally, 3-year changes in CO2 levels have no correlation with 3-year changes in global temperatures for the IPCC's modern era, starting with 1950. Simply put, one does not have to be a rocket scientist, nor a climate scientist, to ascertain that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is severely dysfunctional.
Eventually, global warming phase will return, as it always has in the past, but the climate models' prediction outcomes (and credibility) will likely be even worse, if that is even possible.
Poll after poll clearly indicates that Americans do not believe the Obama administration's anti-science claims (bogus?) regarding climate change and global warming.
Most Americans understand the day-to-day climate reality, thus they handily reject the climate hysteria and gutter-smears that both Obama and John Kerry feel compelled to utter.
As this accompanying chart reveals, global temperature change has decelerated and is now in negative (ie, global cooling) territory - the pink dot denotes current climate reality during the Obama administration.
This empirical evidence from the UK's climate research agency is the gold-standard, utilized by the UN's IPCC.
The red curve is a plot of 5-year "acceleration" (or lack thereof) presented as 5-year per century trend data-points (based on 60-month linear trends calculated for each month since 1850). The black plot represents a simple 10-year moving average of the 60-month data-points.
Why 5 years? Reality: The Obama administration has occupied the White House for the last 5 years.
What does the chart establish? Reality: Since a peak of warming "acceleration" during the second Bush administration, the short-term global warming trend has collapsed during Obama's term. Indeed, short-term global cooling is the current scientific fact.
How does the current short-term trend compare to previous administrations? Reality: During the modern era since 1950, Democrat administrations under Carter and Clinton reached the greatest warming accelerations (respectively, a 7.8°C/century trend during 1980 and a 8.4°C/century during 1998).
For comparisons sake, those 5-year acceleration peaks exceeding 5.0°C/century have been labeled on the chart with their respective White House occupants. And note, the greatest global warming short-term accelerations took place prior to 1950, plus being prior to the large influx of post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
When should a future president and the public become concerned about global warming caused climate change? Reality: When warming finally exceeds the unprecedented per century trend rate (11.5°C) previously reached during the Rutherford Hayes administration (1877-1881), for an extended period (say, 2 years as a minimum).
Again, the pink dot on the chart tells the climate science reality: Per the empirical evidence, the recent White House anti-science climate change comments are blatantly false, without any scientific merit, and are deserving of multiple Pinocchio badges.
More climate science reality: Those modern global and regional temperature charts that don't lie.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate 5-year slopes, 10-year averages and plots. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how. Source of Pinocchio image.
And now NOAA has just released their U.S. dataset update, which reveals that U.S. winters (November, December, January), over the last 20 years, have cooled at a -2.5°F per century rate. The adjacent NOAA/NCDC web site chart depicts that cooling trend.
As this NOAA dataset suggests, the reason for worse winter weather in the U.S. is likely a cooling climate change that has followed the previous modern warming - a natural climate response.
Again, 'those-stubborn-facts' that are so inconvenient for politicians.
Most everyone (99.9%?) involved in the climate science community are fully aware of NASA's gross manipulation "enhancement" of the historical global temperature record dataset.
It's understood by all that the real 20th century warming was just not very dramatic, thus it had to be 'sexed up' to fit the alarmist fear-mongering. As a result, the NASA/GISS climate agency has shown their amazing "scientific" capabilities by producing an enhanced global warming trend.....by simply, and literally, lowering (ie, cooling) past recorded temperatures prior to 1960.
This chart clearly reveals these NASA's manipulation "enhancement" results, which are laughable, unless of course, one is unaware of the back story of manipulated "enhancing" climate science.
NASA's has done a yeoman's job keeping the U.S. mainstream press from discussing the faux global warming trend but international news agencies have less qualms about reporting the truth.
This chart comes from an international newscast regarding the fake global warming. The newscast about the chart and the political agenda behind it can be watched by clicking on the graph. Or read about it here.
The empirical evidence is indisputable and unequivocal.
The continental U.S. has been cooling (-6.5°F/century rate) over the last 15 years, per NOAA. This can no longer be denied by the scientific community and the politicians fanatically pushing the anti-science claim that dangerous and rapid global warming is taking place, due to human CO2 emissions.
This chart plots the most recent monthly U.S. temperatures through January 2014, including the simple 36-month moving average of CO2 atmospheric levels over the last 180 months.
While "global warming" activists/proponents focus on superficial, short-term cherry-picks of the "hottest ________" (just fill in the blank with 'day', 'week', 'month', 'quarter', 'year', etc. to mimic a typical fanatic's cherry-picking spiel), those stubborn climate facts, which are critical, remain simple: the entire globe has experienced a long warming 'pause' and America's climate has been on a cooling trend over that same time span.
Scientists are unable to explain this 'standstill' using the "consensus" AGW hypothesis, and any discussions of the 'inconvenient' U.S. cooling trend are entirely avoided by politicians, climate agency scientists/bureaucrats and other warming advocates.
The observed current U.S. cooling trend is not a prediction, but it does indicate that the continental landmass is affected by powerful, non-CO2 greenhouse gas factors that may continue for the near future.
Note: Chart's linear trend is calculated using monthly absolute temperature values. If using anomalies instead, based on monthly averages from 1901 to 2000 base period, the per century cooling trend is -2.4°F.
Datasets used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Over the last 30 years, the globe has warmed, which no scientist denies.
Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not "unprecedented."
Per NOAA, prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.
This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time (scroll down to the 1940s on this page to learn more about previous global warming).
As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.
And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).
The climate 'FactCheck' summary: the world's climate has experienced a declining ocean warming rate since the 1940s, which contradicts the "consensus" anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, per NOAA. Just another case of those-stubborn-facts ... modern ocean warming is not unprecedented.
Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.
The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.
As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don't even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart - an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)
The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious - how was the IPCC so wrong?
And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC's climate science orthodoxy.
IPCC scientists assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, remaining anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.
This assumption is a cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis. The cumulative CO2 growth causes global warming that accelerates (they hypothesize) to a condition of "runaway" temperature increases via positive feedbacks, leading to catastrophic "tipping point" climate change.
To simplify, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and climate models, assume that every additional emission molecule of atmospheric CO2 will accelerate the global warming, to the point of no return. Thus, each new tonne (metric) of CO2 will boost the acceleration via a theoretical positive feedback amplification.
But does the empirical evidence actually indicate that is indeed what is taking place?
Using a combination of the NOAA annual global temperature dataset and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.
This article's chart provides the answer. As can be observed, each new CO2 emission molecule added to the climate has a smaller and small impact, the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. In 1941, the degree increase per tonne hit a peak. Since then, the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne.
The AGW hypothesis does not account for this ever smaller impact of CO2. Possibly this is the reason for the "consensus" unexpected global warming 'hiatus', which the IPCC scientists are still at a loss to explain.
If this tiny impact stays constant over the next 30 years, and the growth rate of CO2 emissions over the last 15 years remains the same for the next 30 years (another trillion tonnes emitted), the potential increase of global temperatures will barely be +0.2°C (two-tenths of a degree) by year 2044. And if each tonne's impact continues to shrink, as the evidence suggests, so will the temperature increase shrink.
Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions. As the Nature science journal indicates, currently, and for the near future, a natural PDO cooling phase may dominate.
More on the above 'C3' chart. Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880).
The ratio allows for depicting visually the influence of all those previous CO2 emissions on moving 30-year climate periods. The chart's additional green and light blue curves simply provide a smoothed sense of direction of the fossil fuel emission influence.
Summary: The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis. Per the well known and documented CO2 physics, this outcome should not be a surprise. It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' in science.
Per the IPCC's gold-standard of global temperature measurements, since the late 1800s, the highest per century warming trend achieved occurred during the 42-year period ending in 1949.
Simply stated, that is when the actual "unprecedented" global warming acceleration was witnessed.
The accompanying graph establishes this as fact, when put in the IPCC context that modern global warming started with the year 1950. This is the decade of the modern era that the newest IPCC report asserts when human CO2-induced climate change began. (See the red circle? More on that fact in a bit.)
Depending on which IPCC spokesperson's claim is to be believed, since 1950 the "accelerating" global warming is not only unprecedented, it's "rapid", "dangerous", "irrefutable", "indisputable", "undeniable", "incontrovertible" and, of course, "irreversible".
However, the empirical evidence does not support any of these claims.
First, the adjacent chart's essentials. The modern period of 1950 to 2013 is 64 years long, which the IPCC characterizes as being dominated by human CO2 emissions with little natural climate influence. The chart's orange curve represents this modern period.
The chart's green plot represents the 64 years ending in 1949 (from 1886 to 1949), the year designated by the IPCC as the end of natural climate change's dominant impacts. Okay, now note the red circle and red dashed line that intersects the green curve: that's when unprecedented warming took place.
Adding some more context, each of the two 64-year periods had human CO2 emissions. For the modern period since 1950, an approximate 1.2 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions were released, while the earlier period had some 200 billion tonnes - that's a 6x difference.
Yet, as this charts reveals, the per century warming trends are remarkably similar with the fastest warming acceleration happening in the earlier period. This overall similarity takes place despite the incredible increase of human CO2 emissions after 1949.
Indeed, there are amazing similarities between the two periods but they do have differences. There is a significant divergence of trends at the 24-year mark where the modern warming trend starts to decline while the pre-1950 trend continues to increase for another 7 years. In addition, at the 11-year mark, the modern temperature trend does an abrupt reversal from negative (i.e. cooling trend) to warming for the next 4 years, then it reverses again until it also reaches a cooling trend for the 5-year mark ending 2013.
Ultimately, what is the overall impact of CO2 emissions on modern climate change when using the IPCC's year 1950 start? Over the 64 years ending in 2013, the global warming trend was +0.74°C per century. In contrast, the per century trend was +0.65°C for the earlier 64-year period ending 1949.
That's correct, all that separates these two extended periods of global warming is likely an unmeasurable +0.09°C - nine hundredths of a single degree.
The UK's HadCRUT4 global empirical evidence makes it very clear: modern acceleration of warming temperatures is not unprecedented, nor unusual due to CO2 emissions; nor does the modern period exhibit any warming trend that comes close to even 1.5°C per century. In summary, it is highly probable that any modern warming was just a continuation of rebound warming after the end of the Little Ice Age. In other words, natural climate change still rules.
Synopsis: The unprecedented, long-term climate change and global warming actually took place over 40 years ago.
One of the reasons that the UK's HadCRUT global temperature series is considered the 'gold-standard' is its reaching back to year 1850 - a year that is considered near the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
This dataset's superior length allows analysis of long-term climate change since the LIA, including the widely accepted 60-year cycle of global temperatures.
The adjacent chart plots 60-year global temperature changes and cumulative atmospheric CO2 level changes since 1850, using the annual HadCRUT4 dataset.
From this chart, the following can be discerned:
===>Long-term climate change (60-years), as evidenced by temperature change, has been increasing as the globe has rebounded from the depths of the Little Ice Age
===>Long-term warming started well in advance of huge modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions of post-WWII.
===>Unprecedented warming ended with the 60-year peak around 1969 and subsequent long-term warming has returned to very modest levels.
===>Claimed "accelerating" temperature warming does not exist in the more recent long-term record - however, there are 60-year periods of cooling and warming spurts that are the likely result of natural cycles.
===>Both the chart's fitted trend and 10-year average curve (cyan and dark blue, respectively), reveal a temperature change direction that is vastly different (i.e. opposite) of the trend exhibited by the growing cumulative CO2 ppm levels.
===>The hypothesized AGW positive feedback, which supposedly leads to accelerating temperature increases and long-term, "tipping point" climate change, is without any empirical evidence merit
===>Prior to 1970, HadCRUT4 documents four exceptional 60-year warming peaks that are equal or larger than either the modern era's 1998 and 2010 peak.
===>The chart depicts long-term climate change (per changes in temperatures) that is constant, never ending - at times dramatic, and other periods, exhibiting more subtle changes
In summary, the immense growth of cumulative CO2 levels over the last 40+ years has had minimal long-term impact on global temperature change. Recent temperature changes are more likely the result of a combination of the remaining natural warming rebound from the LIA end and natural cycles, which produced those large 60-year temperature increases prior to 1970.
Over the past decade, the public and policymakers have come to realize just how atrocious climate models are at predictions, forecasting and future climate scenarios.
Honestly, it's a wonder anyone still listens to any of the conventional, "consensus" climate modelers at this point, especially the modeling "experts" at NASA.
This chart depicts the famous global warming predictions made by NASA's chief climate scientist in 1988 at a hearing before the U.S. Senate.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization. This is the 'Scenario A' plot on the chart.
Well.....not only has the world matched the 'BAU' growth of the 15 years prior to the 1988 testimony, we have increased the CO2 emission tonnes growth from 1.8% per year to 2.2% (the 15 years prior to 2013). To put those numbers into context, from 1972 through 1987, humans emitted 302 billion tonnes of CO2; in contrast, from 1998 through 2012 humans produced 461 billion tonnes.
Yet, despite the NASA "expertise" and the gigantic growth of human CO2 emissions, actual global temperatures over the past 25 years have closely matched Hansen's 'Scenario C', which he predicted would take place if CO2 emissions had been limited to year 2000 levels.....didn't happen.
Unexpectedly (i.e. not predicted), global temperatures flat-lined and CO2 emissions continued on their merry, amazing growth path, unabated.
Regarding climate reality, the lack of global warming was not a prediction that climate models were programmed to produce. The models do not rely on natural climate change or natural climate warming and cooling attributes. It is not in the models' software "DNA" because human climate experts really don't understand the chaotic nature of Earth's climate, nor comprehend the true power of nature.
The experts are befuddled and recognize that they are without a rational reason for the global warming pause, other than the obvious: natural climate change.
If the current 17-year trend continues, the oceans would warm by an almost unmeasurable one-tenth of a degree Celsius by year 2100. (The 17-year period is 204 months, starting with January 1, 1997 - that is before the super El Nino phenomenon of 1997-1998)
The adjacent charts (courtesy of ocean expert Bob Tisdale) plot the temperature changes for each major ocean basin since late 1981.
The red vertical line on each chart denotes the date of January 1997. The trend data in the corner of each chart assumes the trend from 1997 will continue to year 2100 (warming: trends are not predictions).
From these individual charts, we learn that the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern isn't; it's warming for all the Atlantic basins yet cooling for all the Pacific basins.
Clearly, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and its associated climate models, provide no explanation for this mishmash. It's hard enough for the "experts" to even explain why the Arctic basin warming took off in recent years, while the Southern Ocean basin did the exact opposite, let alone trying to make sense of this global 'mishmash' using the rather lame construct of CO2 greenhouse gas causation.
Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.
Note: Bob Tisdale used NOAA's Nomad web site to create the charts. The Nomad ocean dataset is the highest resolution climate record available but it only goes back to 1981. Bob Tisdale article the charts pulled from.
NASA's climate research arm, GISS, recently updated its global temperature dataset.
Using the annual temperature anomaly data from GISS, in combination with annual CO2 data from NOAA, the temperature increase per atmospheric CO2 ppm increase can be calculated.
Now, if global warming is solely a function of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, then calculating the degree increase per ppm added would be a convenient measure to monitor.
As this chart reveals, for the 50-year period ending 1963, for each ppm increase of CO2 there was an associated increase of +0.024°C; in contrast, for the 50-year period ending 2013, the impact on warming was 67% less per ppm.
This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics - the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. Essentially, from lab testing it was determined that increasing levels of CO2 caused a diminishing returns effect, which is better described here.
The logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was first presented way back in the 1930s by a scientist named Guy Callendar, and it is now widely accepted as science fact.
And as the entire world knows by now, global warming is stuck in 'The Hiatus' that has resulted in temperatures barely budging over the last 16 years. This is despite the prodigious amounts of new CO2 emissions over that time span - recall, as the chart indicates, the influence of CO2 has declined.
What this means is that future CO2 emission impacts will likely continue to lessen, to the point where they become rather inconsequential, which the climate may already be approaching in a manner faster than expected.
Certainly, it would seem this fellow Callendar was really onto something. Plus, he discounted the speculative idea that higher levels of CO2 would create a positive feedback supposedly leading to ever higher temps. It appears he was wise to dismiss the shaky concept of "tipping point" positive feedbacks.
Not bad for a scientist without the "benefits" of super-computers, satellites, IPCC conferences, huge government funding of climate research and etc.
Obama quote: ”Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye…”
…they’ll wonder why a guy with a carbon footprint estimated at 41,000 tons, who sends his family and dogs off on separate flights for vacations in far off ritzy spots, who takes crosscountry flights to give 30 minute speeches, who keeps the White House at a toasty 77F, and who goes to the golf course every couple of weeks in a 17 vehicle motorcade has the cajones to lecture anyone."
As the recent Pew poll before it, this WSJ survey confirms the real disbelief that Americans have about "climate change" and their opinions about the said competence of this president.
There is an enduring myth that global temperatures are accelerating, produced by ever greater amounts of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. The myth is popularized by anti-science propagandists, who are either driven by political agendas or irrational fears.
The myth facilitators actually claim that the world is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. This ludicrous claim is completely counter to all known empirical, scientific evidence.
At least 97% of climate scientists would not make this claim, since it is well established that global temps have stalled for 16+ years, and even the most pro-AGW scientists are now admitting that the lack of warming is likely due to natural forces.
The enduring myth of "accelerating" is a leftover from earlier IPCC climate reports and the original AGW hypothesis that speculated greater levels of atmospheric CO2 would generate "runaway" global warming leading to a catastrophic "tipping point" climate change. That's how 'AGW' turned into 'CAGW'.
Well, neither has happened, which the indisputable and unequivocal evidence is clear about.
The above chart plots the changing 3-year linear trend slopes using monthly observations going back to 1850 (this is the HadCRUT4 dataset from the UK climate research agency - it is the only global dataset going back that far).
The plot clearly shows that temperatures will achieve short-term accelerations, both cooling and warming. The evidence also shows that any acceleration is a temporary phenomenon that then is reversed. The greatest period of accelerating warming took place during the late 1870s when a short-lived +23.4°C per century pace was reached.
The greatest acceleration for the modern era was reached in 1998 (+17.5°C per century rate), some 6 degrees below the earlier record a 100+ years before. The 1998 peak was a direct result of natural climate forces, the super El Nino of 1997-1998.
The chart also includes a 3-year average plot of atmospheric CO2 levels, which reflects a never-ceasing growth (exception being WWII years).
Obviously, to the eye, the level of CO2 has no relationship with "accelerating" cooling or warming. The statistical correlation between CO2 and acceleration level is barely above zero - an indicator that the agenda-driven myth has absolutely no empirical legs, so-to-speak.
Finally, the chart has a 120-period (10-year) average of the 3-year per century trends of acceleration/deceleration. This dark curve has a black circle around the 2013 endpoint. Simply put, accelerating, rapid warming is not happening presently (but rest assured, it will happen in the future, just like it has in the past - and that's what natural climate change does, no human CO2 required).
Peer reviewed studies continue to be published, adding to the unequivocal evidence that climate change was common in the past, often with temperatures higher than modern averages.
The evidence confirms that modern temperatures are not unprecedented nor that human CO2 emissions are required for climate change to happen.
A new study:"A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change reconstructs temperatures in Northern Fennoscandia [within the Arctic circle] over the past 1,600 years.....demonstrating that the Arctic was warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period. The paper adds to over 1,000 peer-reviewed published non-hockey-sticks finding the Medieval Warm Period was global, as warm or warmer than the present, and that there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about the current warm period.....Furthermore, the authors find a natural 70-80 year oscillation of temperatures, similar to the 60-70 year oscillation of the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO]." (paper abstract)
Recently, the world's major climate agencies published their year-end empirical datasets for global temperatures.
How does actual climate reality compare with the IPCC's 2013 proclamation that their "extremely likely" predictions of global temperatures? With 95% certainty, embarrassingly bad. (click on chart to enlarge)
The chart on the left is a plot of the IPCC's RCP4.5 model output versus the climate reality, as represented by the UK's HadCRUT4 global monthly temperature dataset. The bright red and blue curves are simple 3-year moving averages that visually removes all the monthly gyrations.
It is clear that the IPCC's state-of-the-art 2013 climate models start diverging from climate reality around the 1995 period. And the divergence continues to widen to the point where one could conclude that any future output will be extremely unlikely to be of any value to policymakers.
Put another way, these billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded super-computer model simulations have performed atrociously, and are entirely worthless at predicting future climate scenarios.
How did this happen?
While the IPCC's associated climate "experts" are going through their own set of mental gyrations to explain the abysmal climate model and AGW hypothesis performances, two scientists explain how this failure was produced - article number one and article number two.
If you are curious as to the 'whys' of IPCC climate consensus failure, these articles are a must read. For those short on time, though, in a nutshell a compiled summary of reasons for failure:
natural climate variability ignorance
de-emphasis of large uncertainty
dogmatic co2-AGW orthodoxy
Until the above are adequately addressed and fixed, the probability that climate models will predict with accuracy that policymakers can actually rely on is extremely unlikely, with 99.9% certainty.
As the climate science experts and the empirical climate record datasets confirm, there has been no global 'climate-significant' warming since 1998.
Then there is the question of 'statistically-significant' warming - has it happened?
When this subject is discussed by individuals, it's not always clear what they mean. For this article, a statistically-significant global warming means that the linear trend (slope of the trend line) is likely greater than zero with 95% statistical confidence (i.e. the 95% error bars do not include a possible 0.0 or negative temperature degree slope).
Or, using a very simplified example, a calculated (estimated) linear global warming trend, of say 1.50°C/century, is not statistically-significant if the error bars are at ±1.55°C. If the 1.55 error is subtracted from the 1.50 linear trend, an actual possible trend could potentially be negative, not positive, nor even zero.
For more about statistically-significant global warming, there is an expert discussion here. Using the 2013 year-end major temperature datasets listed in that expert discussion, the above grid table (click on to enlarge) represents the lack of statistically-significant warming for each dataset. (When reading the WUWT article, remember that a statistically-significant warming trend does not necessarily mean that it is a climate-significant trend.)
In summary, the table depicts (for those listed climate records) the lack of statistically-significant warming since mid-1997. That's 16+ years. For two of the datasets, it's now up to at least 20 years without a statistically-significant global warming trend.
So, what's that gotta do with '4 Hiroshima bombs per second', you ask?
Well.....the CAGW dead-enders would like everyone to forget about the actual empirical evidence and statistical facts, and instead, focus on the concept that possibly global warming is adding some 4 Hiroshima bombs of energy per second. They imply that this added energy rains down untold destruction from pole-to-pole.....a classic recent example of this hyperbole is described by this journalist.
Amazingly, the dead-enders conveniently forget to mention the science facts, such as the Sun blasts Earth with energy that is equivalent to 1,950 Hiroshima bombs....per second. When one does the arithmetic (86,400 seconds per day times 1,950 H-bombs/second), that's approximately 169 million Hiroshima bombs of natural warming per day.
Thus, when putting hyperbole into factual context, it helps explain why anthropogenic warming might not be making any statistically-significant impression on nature. And, obviously, the over-the-top hyperbole has made little impression on Americans; not so much on Europeans either.
World Extreme Temperature Map (click on to enlarge)
For several decades now, consensus climate experts predicted that human CO2 emissions would produce extreme climate change for the world, which would be an existential threat to civilization.
Experts spoke of boiling oceans and Venus-like atmospheres caused by humans use of fossil fuels. At the heart of these soon-to-be catastrophic climate disasters was runaway and tipping point warming - hotter and hotter temperatures that kept ratcheting up.
It didn't happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.
As this chart reveals, since 1997 global warming has essentially disappeared from all venues. That's 16 years of hibernation, which has the experts robustly befuddled. (click on chart to enlarge)
---->"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."
The above plots of temperature datasets from different climate agencies/organizations clearly indicate that the feared accelerating and runaway warming predicted did not happen, ever. And, for each dataset, the December 2013 temperature anomaly was below the December 1997 anomaly - basically, one could say the globe has cooled slightly over the past 16 years.
The chart also clearly indicates that billions upon billions of human CO2 emissions have had little, if any, impact on global warming.
This empirical evidence strongly counters any claim that changes in human CO2 emissions, up or down, can be viewed as a "control knob" or "thermostat" for Earth's temperature and climate.
Those stubborn facts about global warming and climate change are not forgiving, nor kind to those who continue to deny the indisputable.
The HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset for 2013 was just published. On review of the released annual temperature averages that the UK experts calculated, the calendar year 2013 global temp was cooler than the 1998 mark.
So, during that 15 years of massive human CO2 emissions, the fearsome "runaway" warming was not so much. In fact, after the spewing of some 450 gigatons of fossil fuel emissions the temperature needle hasn't budged, it's actually lower in 2013.
The UK's findings match what other climate experts have found and are now debating the cause. This 'Pause' (aka 'The Hiatus') in global warming has even been noted in Congressional testimony as a matter of official record.
"The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997...Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled....But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."
Corn Belt Temperatures & Map (click on each to enlarge)
It was noted previously that the continental U.S. has been cooling over the last 16 years, at a rate of minus 3.8°F per century rate. This was not predicted by any U.S. climate scientist, nor by NOAA, nor by NASA and certainly not by the political technocrats at the UN's IPCC.
As the NOAA/NCDC climate record reveals, the breadbasket areas of American have been cooling for a longer period - 17 years. The above images reflect the empirical evidence for the primary U.S. corn growing areas., which is cooling at a minus 4.0°F/century rate.
The other major 3 crop regions all show similar type of cooling rates over the last 17 years ending 2013. (see: soybean temperatures, map; spring wheat temperatures, map; and winter wheat temperatures, map)
If this cooling trend were to continue, it would spell disaster for the world's hungry. Let's hope 'the pause' in global warming does not last much longer since it unfortunately seems to project a cooling regime over the U.S.
Recently, the climate change myth that global warming is "accelerating" has been shattered by the near-zilch warming for the last 17 years - indeed, to the point where even climate change alarmist scientists are being forced to admit that 'the pause' remains unexplained.
Another climate myth that can no longer weather the empirical storm is that human CO2 emissions have created an "unprecedented" global warming change regime. Of course, this myth completely melts when contrasted to previous climate warmings during ancient and historical periods.
Yet, it is still a widely accepted myth for periods since 1980 - that human CO2 has caused unprecedented temperature increases, far outpacing any previous 20th century warming increases. That is not true, though, per the NOAA empirical evidence of the climate record.
The above chart depicts the last 100 years of global warming increases, segmented by two 50-year periods, which handily exposes the lameness of the myth.
The column on the left shows the cumulative NOAA temperature change over 50 years, starting in 1914, including the atmospheric change in CO2 levels (black vertical bar) over that same 50 years. The column on the right represents the same information, but instead for the 50-year period starting in 1964.
One does not have to be a climate "rocket" scientist to recognize that the earlier 20th century warming increase was greater than the modern warming. And it is painfully clear, even to proponents of this myth, that the earlier warming increase took place while the CO2 level change was a fraction of that during the modern 50-year period ending in 2013.
From this actual NOAA/NCDC climate record, one can fairly surmise the following: First, modern global warming change is not accelerating, nor unprecedented. Second, that natural climate change is most likely responsible (seeNature science journal article) for the majority of warming increases experienced during the two 50-year periods, not human CO2 emissions.
Central England Temperatures (click images to enlarge)
Recent mainstream press articles, plus those on the blogosphere, indicate a growing concern for a soon-to-come global cooling period, that some are even referring to as a potential mini-ice age. This sudden turn of events is entirely counter to all the "expert" consensus and IPCC predictions that claimed runaway global warming was civilization's greatest threat.
The impetus for the new publicized fears of cooling comes from the indisputable empirical evidence that global warming is suffering a non-predicted 'hiatus' (i.e. warming is stalled, paused, stopped, etc.) these last 15+ years. Combine that pause with the additional empirical evidence of solar activity being at a minimum and major ocean oscillations being in non-warming phases and that combo spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
One region of the world that may already be experiencing the impacts of a global cooling phase is The Midlands of central England.
The above charts are plots of the Central England (CE) Temperature record. The left chart plots the annual dataset (light green) back to inception, 1659AD. The maroon curve is a simple 25-year average of the annual temperatures. The chart also includes a plot of a 25-year average of annual CO2 atmospheric levels.
Obviously, the CE region has had a high degree of climate temperature variability over the records 355 years, coupled with an observed warming trend generated with the rebounding from the depths of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Starting in the early 1700s, there are signs the warning rebound was beginning, but it wasn't until the late 1800's that one can discern a strong post-LIA warming trend that ushers in the modern era. This positive spike of temperatures was well before the huge CO2 consumer/industrial emissions of the late 20th century.
Actually, using the 25-year moving average curve, one can see 3 distinct periods of recovery from the LIA. By the end of 2013, the 25-year average appears to reach its peak - the "warmest" ever.
However, by zooming in on the last 25 years since 1988 a different story is told - a climate cooling story.
The chart on the right is a plot of CE temperatures since 1988 - yes, the same year that climate scientists warned us that we were at global warming's death door. The chart's red and grey curves are 3-year averages and a linear trend line has been added (dark green).
Clearly, as this plot of modern temperatures reveals, for 25 years the CE region has had a slight cooling trend. This trend would produce an overall cooling of +0.53°C by 2100AD, if it were to monotonously continue (it won't). Adding to the consensus "expert" woes, any observed relationship between temperatures and CO2 levels is non-existent, if not a negative correlation over the last 2.5 decades.
If huge emissions of CO2 are not driving temperature increases, then the apparent cooling must be a function of more powerful forces, such as described in this latest peer-reviewed study. With that said, all empirical evidence points to the fact that climate science remains unsettled and that the CO2-centric CAGW hypothesis is essentially without clothes.
We have NASA to thank for introducing the world to climate-porn, which has become a widely accepted word of derision describing the greens' and Democrats' anti-CO2 doomsday-propaganda.
Back in 1988, NASA kicked it off with its constant disaster-laden predictions, not only in articles, but even in Congressional testimony.
NASA technocrats purposefully attempted to scare the public and policymakers with promises of skyrocketing temperatures, with Earth's atmosphere turning into Venus-like conditions and, of course, those soon-to-be boiling oceans. As the public was going to learn over the next few decades, NASA made sure no climate-porn catastrophe was left unexposed.
So after decades of NASA scare tactics what does the empirical evidence say? What about that CO2-induced accelerated warming that will cause oceans to boil?
Using the NOAA's high-resolution ocean temperature dataset, the chart above reveals the absolute non-existence of "accelerating" global warming, for all the world's oceans, and for those tropical waters that NASA predicts we will witness boiling.
Since 1988, and after gigaton upon gigaton of human CO2 emissions over the last 25 years, the ocean warming is not so much. Accelerated warming is nada. And since 1996, a year prior to the super El Nino of 1997-98, the oceans' warming trend has actually been shrinking.
In fact, the tropical oceans since 1996 are actually cooling.
Is that an indication that we should be worried about global cooling? Well, a lot of people are now thinking the unthinkable and talking about it.