"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 2013 year-end update of short-term drought conditions across the contiguous U.S. has been released.
The latest NOAA empirical evidence confirms that the drought trend has improved (i.e., lesser drought conditions are better than greater) since 1950. Not reflected on this chart is that the aqua-colored trend is an actual improvement to the trend stretching back to 1895, the inception of dataset.
Why 1950 for this drought chart's trend?
The IPCC now considers the year 1950 as the marker for CO2-driven catastrophic climate change. The climate "experts" and computer models that the UN's IPCC relies on predicted that droughts would become a major issue starting in the second-half of the 20th century.
Good news...the IPCC experts were wrong, again. This NOAA chart represents the indisputable facts.
As an aside, this 1895-2013 chart also depicts how the climate is constantly changing over extended periods - going from one extreme to another. This is clear documentation of the natural climate change that occurs and what skeptics emphasize, while at the same time, anti-CO2 fanatics and global warming alarmists completely deny.
Back in 1988 (that would be 25 years ago) NASA scientists predicted that global temperatures would increase by 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, within 30 years, if human CO2 fossil fuel use continued to increase by 1.5% per year.
Well....how's that expert NASA climate prediction working out for Americans?
L.O.L., big time.
During 1988 the average U.S. temperature was 52.6°F. And for 2013, 25 years later? The mean 2013 U.S. temp was 52.4°F.
Yep, you read that correctly. The 2013 temperature was below the 1988 temperature. Now, it's not quite 30 years yet, but it's obvious at the 25 year mark that the "experts" are spectacularly clueless when it comes to predicting climate and temperatures.
And what about that scary 'business-as-usual' global fossil fuel growth of 1.5% per year that the leading NASA climate scientist warned would cause temperatures to skyrocket? Ooops, annual global fossil fuel growth averaged 2.3% since 1988 through 2012 (click image below to enlarge).
Indeed, the chart at the top (click top chart to enlarge) indicates that the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels has been phenomenal since around 1950. And as the bright red trend curve depicts, U.S. temperatures have been increasing since 1895 - more so since the early 1980s to the late 1990s when U.S. temperature increases flattened, and then literally started to cool per NOAA's NCDC climate division.
Depending on which climate catastrophe du jour that "experts" were shouting, the U.S. was either going to face extreme droughts or biblical floods or both at the exact same time! Again, back to the top chart where at the bottom is the plot of U.S. precipitation since 1895.
Clearly, the huge increases in CO2 levels have not demonstrably changed long-term precipitation (see the unchanged bright green fitted trend curve). By 2100AD, maybe, just maybe, precipitation may increase by one-tenth of an inch.
One last point. The top chart shows that in any given year, the average American will experience a temperature swing of some 50 degrees, regardless of CO2 levels. Yet, Democrats and Hollywood celebrities are fixated on tiny predicted temperature warming, which recent empirical evidence, over the last 15+ years, suggests will be from hundredths of a degree increase to multiple tenths of a degree increase by 2100AD.
Are these pampered, wealthy, spoiled greens/liberals/progressive/leftist anti-CO2 fanatics overreacting, insane from imaginary climate calamity fears? Hmmm...it would seem most Americans think they are.
The 2013 climate reality has been a harsh mistress to those cult doomsday scientists and proponents who constantly embarrass themselves by denying the actual climate evidence.
While this latest "global warming" PR nightmare exposes the absurdity of the doomsday cult science, the new IPCC climate report ('AR5') continues to promulgate the doomsday, anti-science scenarios for the news media. Yet, this latest report has quietly moderated the long IPCC tradition of climate reality denial.
Analyzing the IPCC's latest publication details found deep inside the the AR5 report (which the mainstream media always fails to read), the IPCC has been forced to lower their global warming temperature predictions "projections."
Essentially, the IPCC's long denial of non-catastrophic warming has been mugged by climate change reality.
The above chart (click to enlarge) depicts the robust and significant lowering of the IPCC's predictions regarding human CO2-induced global warming. Despite being forced to drop their medium assessment down to a a rather low +1.7°C per century trend, the actual empirical evidence, from both the land/sea surface and satellite atmospheric observations, indicates that the IPCC will again be forced in the future to lower their predictions projections even further.
Due to the climate reality of observed per century trends, ranging from 0.0 to +1.1°C, the next ratchet down by the IPCC may be in the 1.25°C per century realm.
Unfortunately, for many years the IPCC has successfully practiced climate reality denial, with the gleeful support of mainstream science "journalists" who just love their climate disaster porn. No longer, though, it would seem.
The climate change realists are now forcing objective scientific analysis on both the climate-doomsday, anti-CO2 cultists and the big government funded scientists who promote that fringe anti-science agenda. It's a welcome change - the global audience is finally learning the truth about the real climate change and the actual lackluster global warming.
The IPCC's catastrophic AGW (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the prediction that human CO2 emissions would produce a "hotspot" in the atmosphere above the tropics. This hotspot was identified by the IPCC as the penultimate evidence that global warming was accelerating, causing a "tipping point" cascade of catastrophic events.
The projected hotspot over the tropics was expected to stretch from the 5km mark to as high as 15km, with the hottest portion being from 8-12km. The temperatures in this specific area were supposed to rise 1.2 to 1.5 times faster than surface temperatures, due to positive feedback loop produced by the CO2-induced warming.
Big problem though. As this chart of the lower troposphere (over the tropic latitudes) documents, NASA satellites are unable to locate this mysterious, runaway "hotspot" (AGW "signature" and/or "fingerprint") that the IPCC and global warming alarmists have long predicted. This despite NASA satellites having 100% coverage over the entire tropical troposphere, including the critical water vapor areas of the lower and mid-troposphere.
In fact, this specific area of the troposphere has only warmed a fraction of the IPCC's predictions, turning the "hotspot" into the embarrassing "AWOLspot." Additionally, this means that the feared AGW positive feedback loop went kaput, or it never really existed, except in the "consensus" hive mind of the alarmist-science collective.
Additional chart info: the red-dotted curve is a basic 36-month moving average; the green curve is 6th order fitted trend of monthly measurements; and the grey area represents the cumulative per cent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. (Since satellite monitoring of atmospheric temperatures began, the cumulative growth of CO2 ppm levels has been over 18%.)
Per this satellite empirical evidence, the existing linear temperature trend of the low-troposphere tropic latitudes is ludicrously small, indicating that 2100AD temperatures may only increase by +0.6°C (necessary warning: trends are not predictions, don't go there). For the mid-troposphere tropics, the trend is even lower, +0.3°C. Compare those low trend rates with the modest warming trend of the entire atmosphere: +1.2°C by 2100AD.
And the comparison to the surface temps? NASA/GISS has a linear trend for the same time period projecting an outcome of +1.3°C by 2100AD.
Yep, you read that correctly. The tropical hotspot trends are lower than the global atmospheric trend and the global surface trend - a magnificent and spectacular fail of IPCC climate "science."
The simple, indisputable, scientific summary after 35 years of empirical evidence: The tropical, runaway hotspot did not happen in spite of massive amounts of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere; ergo, the IPCC was wrong, again; the billion-dollar climate model predictions were wrong, again; alarmist, agenda-driven scientists' claims of climate doomsday were wrong, again; and, the fanatical anti-CO2 green lobby was wrong, as always.
Note: Links to datasets used in Excel to create chart: UAH satellite & NOAA CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
The IPCC's climate science has long claimed that human CO2 emissions are producing an accelerated global warming, with a "runaway" warming trend, which is then being amplified in the north and south polar extremes. This dangerous warming is, of course, causing the ice sheets to melt, unleashing catastrophic sea level rise, and thus swamping coastal regions and low-lying islands, as we speak!
Hmmm.....despite over 845 billion tons of human CO2 emissions being added to the biosphere since 1978, that predicted dangerous warming, and associated catastrophes, have yet to materialize.
A BIG-TIME FAIL, no? As many are now saying, a rather robust and very significant embarrassment for all of the "consensus" involved: including the IPCC, the United Nations' science "experts," the governing elites and bureaucrats.
This huge fail is amplified because the South Pole region that includes Antarctica has done the opposite - literally a cooling temperature trend over the last 35 years.
NASA's satellites have now been measuring global temperatures for a full 35 years (420 months through November 2013), including the Antarctic. The above chart documents the measured southern polar region temperatures.
As can be seen, there has been a cooling trend - granted, a very tiny -0.04°C/century, but it remains far removed from the IPCC's unicorn science of "amplified" and dangerous polar warming.
And not only has it not warmed, the Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record amount.
Well, you might now be wondering if that imminent, catastrophic Antarctica ice sheets melting and collapse are still imminent...as predicted. Nope. Eating a huge amount of that cooling crow, the IPCC has recently labeled that outcome as "extremely unlikely".....Ooops!!
In summary, those stubborn facts that are the archenemy of climate change alarmists are without mercy - after 35 years of high tech measurements, the South Pole region has nada, zilch, goose egg, naught, aught, nil, nix, nothing, null, zero, zip and zippo warming. Nuff said.
In this recent article, Bob Tisdale deconstructs the irrational and anti-science claims of a new global warming study produced by a couple of prominent climate reality deniers.
Parsing through Tisdale's analysis makes it clear that alarmists remain grasping at straws, while cherry-picking evidence that is easily refuted with updated empirical measurements.
As part of his analysis, he shows the adjacent chart comparing the state-of-the-art IPCC climate models versus climate reality. As observed, the computer simulations are not up to the task of accurately predicting global temperatures, whether being in the past or modern eras.
Essentially, as Tisdale notes, the CO2-centric models are failed prediction tools and actually contradict the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are a major factor in the modern era's past global warming, which, btw, stalled more than a decade ago.
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
Climate reality and the IPCC's predictions often wildly diverge. The well understood reason for this divergence is simply a result of the UN's political agenda, pushed aggressively by its bureaucrats and sponsored "scientists".
An example of its agenda science is shown in the adjacent plot of actual sea level rise versus 2100AD predictions. (click plot to enlarge)
At the bottom of the chart is the plot of actual sea level rise calculated by Colorado University using satellite measurements. Per this empirical evidence, the sea level trend since 1992 suggest that oceans will rise some 11 inches by 2100AD.
An 11" rise by century-end is definitely not a catastrophe and certainly an outcome that humans can adapt to/cope with. And clearly, it represents a 2100AD level substantially below the IPCC's predicted 24" rise.
The IPCC's prediction not only does not comport with climate reality, other expert research indicates that sea level rise by 2100AD will amount to only a 4-6" increase. Two recent studies, one by NOAA and another by China's experts, represent 'those stubborn facts' that are continually undermining the IPCC prediction fantasies.
When assessing future climate forecasts, it's best to remember that the IPCC's "scientific" reports are climate exaggerations produced by their mandated UN political agenda. Climate science reality is an entirely different animal, though.
The abysmal failure of climate models as tools to predict future climate is well documented.
The vast, multi-billion expenditure on tools that can't accurately predict may indeed further needed climate research, but as for model outputs being a sound foundation for policymakers, they're worthless.
This new study confirms that conclusion. Since policymakers need to thoughtfully plan for changes in future precipitation levels, this peer reviewed research makes it clear computer simulations are inappropriate and misleading tools to base policy on.
As previous studies and data have indicated, sea levels are rising at a very modest rate.
The newest research has determined sea level are only rising one-third as much as predicted by the IPCC - that fraction represents a century-end rise of only 4 inches.
The top chart of actual NOAA sea level metrics was produced by Steve Goddard and it clearly shows that NOAA tide gauge measurements match what the new study found.
As with the exaggerations of "accelerating" global warming, the claims that rapid and dangerous sea level rise are entirely without scientific merit - yep, another bogus alarmist claim fails its validity test.
This top plot of satellite global temperatures is scientifically unequivocal (click on to enlarge):
The actual empirical evidence from state-of-the-art measurement technology reveals a global warming spike during the late 1990's (due to the Super El Nino), but after that, essentially zilch.
Thus, for the last 20 years (240 months) the global warming trend of +0.52°C by 2100AD is 'climate insignificant' - a trend that climate scientists certainly don't get excited about.
And when one examines the last 17-years, the satellite global temperature trend becomes slightly less than zero (i.e. global cooling). As a prominent climate alarmist scientist determined recently in a peer reviewed paper:
“There is a lot of noise in the climate system and it is quite possible that the noise can mask the effects of man-made carbon dioxide for a period of time. However if the slope is zero for 17 years, then we cannot blame noise any more but we have to face the facts that we humans do not affect the climate to any great extent.”
The bottom plot of global temperatures confirms the atrocious climate predictions of the IPCC "expert" climate models. This is irrefutable evidence that the consensus climate models can't predict squat and should not be relied upon by policymakers.
Finally, it is well established that Obama and his administration are serial pathological liars (sounds harsh but it is undeniable). This is not only true in the health care and Obamacare policy arena, but is also a common denominator in their climate change alarmist claims.
First, a generic wind stress definition is in order.
surface roughness (i.e., turbulence) as measured by satellite technology, is
referred to as 'wind stress' in climate models. In plain-speak, it is sea surface turbulence, obviously
driven by wind speed and direction, in addition to being impacted by atmospheric density/pressures, sea surface
temperatures, sea buoyancy and currents. Wind stress affects the air-sea heat exchange,
as well as the mixing of carbon/heat stored in the deeper parts of oceans. Wind
stress also has impacts on cloud cover, ocean current circulations and sea ice
In essence, wind stress is a powerful and critical elemental
influence on the world's climate. Thus, to forecast future climate conditions
with any sort of accuracy, it is absolutely necessary to be able to accurately simulate
As this latest peer reviewed scientific research reveals,
all climate "experts" and the IPCC's climate models remain unable to
accurately simulate wind stress on their massively expensive, sophisticated,
complex computer models.
National, regional and local politicians/policymakers, and those unelected bureaucrats, rely on the IPCC's climate models (and other similar simulations) to justify and make plans for vast expenditures of taxpayers' dollars to vanquish climate change.
Unfortunately, as this peer reviewed article finds, the latest climate models are absolutely worthless in regards to rational policy-making and expenditures for future weather/climate.
Intuitively, one would expect that after the gargantuan, multi-billion dollar sums that climate modellers spent, their sophisticated computer simulations would now, at minimum, accurately forecast the impacts of incredibly large weather phenomenon that occur regularly, such as the east Asian monsoons. Not so, as this scientific research clearly documents.
More often than not, the biggest, baddest, most complex and expensive models have a long history at abysmal prediction skill.
Objectively, the models
remain good tools for climate researchers to learn from, but they really
can't predict squat when it comes to future climate reality, and should never be used for that purpose.
The prediction failure rate of the IPCC and global warming alarmists has simply been astounding.
It is highly certain, at least a 95% certainty, that there has never been an organization so inept at predictions.
The latest prediction failure is one that states that as the earth warms, the world's peatlands would release their sequestered CO2. This release would then unleash a climate positive feedback, thus warming the world even further.
As this new study discovered, per the empirical evidence, as the earth warmed, even more CO2 was sequestered in the peatlands - the direct opposite of the IPCC alarmist community prediction. Absolutely zilch positve feedback took place
The taxpayer-funded, billion-dollar black holes known as 'climate models' have been unable to predict squat when it comes to future climate conditions - as with global temperatures, the same holds true for the newer IPCC models predicting Antarctic sea ice extent.....it's the 'same old, same old'
Untold resources have been spent by government bureaucrats in an attempt to improve the dismal performance of the CMIP3 computer climate models. After billions being spent on these IPCC CMIP-class of models one would expect that they would have a confirmed capability to accurately predict Antarctic sea ice reality.
At least that's what 5 climate scientists expected. Wrong.
"The authors write that "Phase 5 of CMIP (CMIP5) will provide the model output that will form the basis of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]," and they therefore thought it important to determine how well these models represent reality...examined "the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 models used in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005."...report that (1) "the majority of models have too small of an SIE at the minimum in February," that (2) "several of the models have less than two-thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum," that (3) "in contrast to the satellite data, which exhibit a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979-2005 shows a decrease in each month," that (4) "the models have very large differences in SIE over 1860-2005," and that (5) "the negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979-2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." [John Turner, Thomas Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth Marshall, Scott Hosking 2013: Journal of Climate]
Computer model simulations of complex, chaotic systems often are massive failures producing worthless prediction output.....all the climate models used by the IPCC and the major climate research agencies are no different - with that said, there are times when a simpler and more elegant model approach can produce superior results despite the chaos at hand, and for a fraction of the cost
(click on graphs to enlarge)
Above are plots of several climate models updated with the most current HadCRUT and/or NASA-GISS global temperature observations. As noted in previous 'C3' posts, the traditional, wildly expensive climate agency computer models have done an absolute abysmal job at forecasting climate change and global warming.
Charts 2, 3 and 4 reveal the massive forecasting failure that the billion-dollar climate simulations have delivered. In the face of consistent, very predictable growth in CO2 emissions over the 21st century, each of these models predicted a huge increase in global temperatures, which turned out to be the opposite of climate reality.
Chart #2 deserves special note. This is the NASA/James Hansen model of global temperatures that has been used since 1988 to effectively frighten the public. In 1988, James Hansen predicted that if human CO2 emissions growth continued in a "business as usual" manner then we would face runaway global warming - this outcome is depicted by the bright green curve labeled 'Scenario A' on Chart #2.
When Hansen made this prediction, the human CO2 emissions "business as usual" growth amounted to an approximate 32% increase over the prior 15 years to 1988. In contrast, the 15 years prior to 2013 saw CO2 emissions grow by about 41% - a significantly robust increase over Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.
Yet the actual plotted global temperature results on Chart #2, through June 2013, reveal that global warming has died and world temperatures are well below the NASA "business as usual" scenario. In fact, the actual temperatures are practically below the NASA model's 'Scenario C' (the cyan/aqua curve on chart) that assumes CO2 emissions had been reduced to year 2000 levels.
As the actual, objective empirical evidence clearly documents, the consensus "expert" models are severely flawed.
However, not all models are created equal and the one that produces the best global temperature predictions is also the one that is the most elegant, simplest and least costly. That model's superior performance is shown in Chart #1 (click on to enlarge).
This model was developed by Duke University scientist, Nicola Scafetta. This model's description and results are explained here and here. Needless to say, this model's continuing success is a product of non-consensus thinking, which the IPCC's climate "experts" reject because Scafetta's model is not based on the very obviously crippled CO2-AGW hypothesis.
And that's why the mainstream science/environmental "journalists" have not made this model's success widely known since it inconveniently, and embarrassingly, establishes that all their previous extreme global warming forecast articles per the consensus "experts" were wrong.
Note: If you desire to produce your own Excel chart to compare against Chart #4, download CMIP3 and HadCRUT3 data from here. For 'C3' Excel charts/graphs, this link has the vast majority of datasets used at our site.
The IPCC's climate models and multiple government climate "experts" have proven time and again that they are completely unable to make reliable predictions of global climate attributes - this time, the climate reality wake-up call finds Australian government scientists to be wildly wrong regarding their "accelerating" sea level predictions
(click on image to enlarge, image source, temperature data)
As has now become well established, climate experts and their climate models have done an abysmal job at predicting global temperatures. This spectacular prediction failure has led to even greater failures for predictions of multiple climate attributes, including global sea levels.
A new study has analyzed the sea level prediction capabilities of Australian government experts and found extreme prediction failure, which is another resounding testament to the gigantic waste of climate research billions over the last few decades.
"In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
(1) The official Australian claim of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally. Rather, it seems strongly contradicted
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future." [Nils-Axel Morner, Albert Parker 2013: Environmental Science]
1. Expert climate model predictions of catastrophic accelerating sea level increases are wildly wrong
2. CO2-centric climate models that focus almost entirely on the impact of human trace emissions of greenhouse gases produce erroneous and unreliable predictions for policymakers
3. The IPCC and large government computer climate models can't predict squat
Note: Chart has 36-month average HadCRUT4 global temperature curve (#7 maroon) superimposed.
The CAGW climate change alarmists and "experts" fill the mainstream media with frightening tales of looming disasters, including crop failures that will lead to mass starvation - but when compared to global warming reality and actual world rice production and yield, the research and empirical evidence show output results are enhanced, not harmed
(click on images to enlarge, data source, rice image source)
The green-religion fundamentalists have a long history of making crop failure and massstarvation predictions. A 2010 study by a group of academia warming alarmists added to the collection of doom prognostications of coming crop failures, due to anthropogenic warming from human CO2 emissions.
As the above chart on the right indicates however, despite the modest global warming since the 1970's, and the massive increase of human CO2 levels, world rice production increased and continues to do so. Why?
Well, certainly better agriculture methods and technology made fools of the green 'Earth Day' fanatics. In addition, the latest research actually documents with irrefutable evidence that rice crop yield benefits from both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.
Roy et al..."the five researchers from the Central Rice Research Institute of India conducted a three-year open-top-chamber field study to observe the effects of elevated as opposed to ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 vs. 390 ppm), as well as elevated temperature (T, 2°C above ambient temperature), on dry matter production, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant parts, and their allocation in a tropical rice cultivar...Results of the experiment revealed the following responses in the elevated CO2/elevated temperature treatment: (1) Dry matter accumulation in the aboveground portion of the rice plants was enhanced by 18.1% at maturity. (2) Root biomass, leaf area index and net carbon assimilation rates also increased significantly. (3) Grain yield was significantly higher (19.6%) in the CO2-enriched treatment. (4) The net carbon yield increased by 24.2%. (5) Nitrogen allocation increased significantly in leaf (13%), stem (14%) and panicle (17%) at maturity. [K.S. Roy, P. Bhattacharyy, S. Neogi, K.S. Rao, T.K. Adhya 2012: Field Crops Research]
1. Global warming alarmists' predictions of world hunger and mass deaths should not be believed
2. Green agenda-driven foretelling of crop failure and starvation from higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are obviously without much merit
3. Rice crop yield and production improvements will likely continue despite the doomsday predictions
For decades, the mainstream journalists have dutifully reported hysterical alarmism generated by a minority of scientists dedicated to the concept of human CO2-caused catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)...this style of sensationalist, tabloid "climate science" journalism however is dependent on either a condition of stuck-on-stupid mentality or a highly biased, politically motivated political agenda, not on scientific empirical evidence
Read here. Adjacent is a chart that depicts the output of climate alarmism of catastrophic global warming scientists, versus scientific reality. Per this empirical evidence, the experts and their wildly expensive, souped-up CAGW spreadsheet models obviously can't predict squat.
Despite this well documented, spectacular and long known failure of the "consensus," "expert" climate models, the stuck-on-stupid tabloid press is just now coming to grips with their own spectacular stupidity (gullibility?).
It would benefit all Americans, and the rest of the world's populace, if everyone just simply ignored the mainstream press in regards to any type of science reporting - if that were to happen, incredibly wasteful dumb policies would not be implemented by an even stupider class of individuals - the politicians.
The IPCC predicted that sea levels would rise to dangerous levels from CO2-induced climate change - satellite data for Hawaii and a new peer reviewed study eviscerates the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria
The image on the left is the main Hawaiian Island with a red circle denoting the coastal region near the community of Captain Cook, Hawaii. The chart on the right is a plot of satellite data of Captain Cook coastal sea surface heights, and monthly atmospheric CO2 levels, since 1992.
Clearly, per the satellite data, the hysterical IPCC prediction that human CO2 emissions would cause dangerous, accelerating sea level rise and swamp Pacific Ocean islands is totally discredited. Not only has human CO2 not unleashed catastrophic sea level rises (i.e. climate change), human emissions have not unleashed rapidly increasing, catastrophic global warming.
Regarding global sea levels, a new peer reviewed study found that both satellite and tide gauge empirical observations indicate that sea levels are driven by a natural 60-year oscillation. Essentially, sea levels will naturally rise and fall regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"Over the last decade," in the words of Chambers et al. (2012), "numerous papers have commented on the appearance of decadal and longer period fluctuations in select tide gauge records... And in their own study of long tide gauge records in every ocean basin, Chambers et al. find that there is, indeed, "a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th century."...they rightly state that the 60-year oscillation does change "our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than one-cycle of the oscillation." And, therefore, they conclude that "although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year oscillation [italics and bold added]," in further support of which contention they note that "there have been previous periods where the rate was decelerating..." [Don P. Chambers, Mark A. Merrifield, R. Steven Nerem 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
1. Per the empirical satellite data, human CO2 emissions are not causing an accelerating sea level rise that is swamping Pacific Ocean islands, and thus causing a vast migration of climate change refugees (another hysterical IPCC prediction spread by climate liars).
2. Per scientific research, there exists a natural 60-year oscillation of sea surface heights that better explains sea height change than the alarmist CAGW hypothesis.
The ultimate test for the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis is the existence of the predicted "hotspot" that is a sign of a positive feedback loop for accelerating global warming - newest data show that even after record setting human CO2 emissions the "hotspot" failed to materialize
Per the IPCC's global warming hypothesis, at the very top of the troposphere, above the equator region, is the location (12km, 200hPa @ 20°N - 20°S) that triggers a positive climate feedback, which produces the mythical runaway, tipping point of accelerated, dangerous global warming, which of course is unequivocal and irrefutable, except when it isn't.
This location is often referred to as the tropical "hotspot," supposedly an artifact of modern industrial/consumer human CO2 emissions.
The high climate sensitivity programmed into the IPCC's climate models is entirely dependent of this hotspot of positive feedback - with the hotspot, climate models predict a scary global warming range that spans from 2°C to 6°C.
If there is no tropical upper troposphere hotspot, then there is no positive feedback, and thus, no climate change crisis as predicted by the IPCC. If there is no hotspot, then the IPCC hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming (AGW) is essentially proven false.
Based on accepted physics, without the positive feedback triggered by the hotspot, surface global temperatures from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will increase by some +0.5° to 1.5°C. That is the range climate models predict (depending on the given climate model) if the "hotspot" does not exist.
The IPCC's gold-standard for upper troposphere data is the UK's HadAT2 dataset that represents high altitude balloon/radiosonde measurements. These balloons provide a higher resolution of the atmospheric layer temperatures than current satellites can provide. Over time, approximately 28+ million radiosonde measurements have taken place.
A few days ago (2/19/2013), the HadAT2 was finally updated through December 31, 2012 - the previous update of dataset was through 12/31/2011. The above chart plots the latest AT2 dataset and concurrent, well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 17 years. (Why 17?)
Conclusions from the chart:
#1.The IPCC's tropical "hotspot" does not exist.
#2. Atmospheric CO2 levels over 350ppm do not cause a hotspot to occur.
#3. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than expert assumptions.
#4. Temporary natural El Nino events do cause a spike in upper troposphere temperatures but then return to a lower temperature state (no positive feedback loop).
#5. The IPCC, its experts and climate models have been wrong about the mythical hotspot since the UN created the IPCC (1988).
#6. The continuing abysmal failure of climate models is likely associated with the lack of the mythical, hypothesized hotspot.
#7. The AGW hypothesis of tipping point, climate positive feedback is proven false after decades of zero empirical evidence supporting it.
#8. Despite all empirical evidence, IPCC scientists and bureaucrats will keep pushing the hotspot, positive feedback hypothesis in order to continue their lucrative taxpayer funding.
Recently, a new 2012 study by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu found:
"It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary
condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper
tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as
compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It
is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs
are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent
model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming
represents an important problem..."
Previous studies have documented the tropical hotspot problem (source for all quotes here):
"Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the
upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface.
Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and
satellite data have often not shown this expected trend." Sherwood et al 2008.
"On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface
warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one
observational dataset." Other observations show weak or even negative amplification.” Santer et al 2005
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.” Santer et al 2008
“Model results and observed temperature
trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being
separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In
layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” Douglass et al 2007
Update, per a reader's email: First, from the 2nd order draft of the IPCC's AR5, and second, from a comment at Judith Curry's 'Climate Etc.' blog:
"Section 188.8.131.52.2, p. 9-26, lines 31-33: "In Summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 197902011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.""
"However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures...However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled."
Note 1: A simple
hotspot explanation summarized from this article: Increasing CO2 levels causes atmosphere to warm;
then atmosphere causes Earth's surface to warm; warming of oceans cause
evaporation; increased evaporation leads to more water vapor in the
upper troposphere; water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms
the atmosphere even more (positive water vapor feedback); the Earth's surface warms
even more; and then auto 'repeat and rinse' until Earth's oceans boil, per an "expert."
Note 2: A scientist discusses the IPCC hotspot issue and dismantles a lame pro-hotspot argument (geesh, talk about alarmists' "scientific" mis-truths).
Note 3: The catastrophic global warming alarmists, be they "scientists" or political hacks, are very alarmed that the "hotspot" never materialized. To cover up this major failure of the AGW hypothesis, they usually attempt excited hand-waving to distract the gullible, including: the disingenuous, circular logic claim that it must exist because the models predict it, thus the measurements must be wrong; or the amazing claim that the hotspot exists but it just doesn't reveal itself to humans (really, trust us, it's hiding).
Billions upon billions have been poured into climate research and the infamous climate computer models - after those untold billions, the newest CMIP5 climate models are still unable to predict global temperatures with any accuracy
Computer models, in general, are essentially worthless as policy tools when the number of variables and complexity of the relationships are beyond easy human comprehension.
Complex, mind-boggling multivariate models more often than not produce a huge surplus of garbage output (see chart) that confuses both policymakers and the public, resulting in poor policy choices and failed implementation strategies and tactics.
Combine that typical outcome with the well known phenomenon of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) that is inherent to all computer simultations and the likely result is a manifesto for a big fail.
Some recent public examples of computer complex simulation fiascoes include: computer models causing a 2-year delay in finding the black box from Air France Flight 474; the hysterical computer projections about potential bird flu deaths; the abysmal computer prediction regarding Obama's "stimulus" affect on unemployment; and, of course, the Federal Reserve's 2007 econometric model prediction that completely missed the soon-to-be 'Great Recession' - and don't forget the recent gargantuan fail of these type of "expert" computer models.
So it should come as no surprise that computer attempts at predicting outcomes for the incredibly complex, chaotic world's climate are bound to fail.
To that point, it has been recently observed that past climate model forecasts have been spectacular failures due to bad assumptions and a fanatical blind loyalty to a very weak (lame?) AGW hypothesis. And as the above chart indicates, the newest CMIP5 climate simulations appear to be not much better.
Thus, it is a safe bet that proposing trillion-dollar climate solutions based on the outputs of these new models will prove to be another common sense (no computer needed) predictable disaster. However, that will again be in hindsight for the political elites and mainstream journalists.
Simply stated, the Obama Administration and leading Democrats refuse to be honest with the American public - the empirical evidence and climate scientists now confirm that real global warming and climate change will be significantly less than predicted, making the politician lies even more troubling
As previously discussed, the consensus regarding future global warming and climate change has fallen apart.
Essentially, the climate research agencies programmed their computer models with an extremely high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. As a result, these computer climate simulations predicted outlandishly high future temperatures.
These alarmist, catastrophic temperature simulations were portrayed to the public by the mainstream media, the United Nations and Obama's big government advocates as gospel truth, when in fact they were nothing more than hypothetical speculations with no empirical foundation.
The above two charts provide further proof that computer model simulations were spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC chart on the left has a mauve curve that represents future temperatures if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. This chart also has two red lines of actual observed HadCRUT global temperature trends (red lines) when projected out to 2100AD.
Clearly, observed temperature trends are predicting a future temp that resembles the IPCC projection if CO2 was held constant - the actual trends are multiple times below the "runaway" and "accelerating" global warming that Obama and the IPCC still push.
The second chart on the right plots the IPCC's different CO2 scenarios that the world may follow. A close examination of this chart reveals that actual CO2 emissions continue to follow the 'business as usual' scenario (A1F1), which the IPCC and Obama state is the cause of "runaway" global warming and climate change.
Since the "runaway" and "accelerating" scenarios have been ginormous scientific failures, as previously discussed, AGW scientists and alarmists/advocates are having to seriously re-think the basic assumptions of catastrophic global warming.
As is usually the case though, the now proven bad, anti-science is not stopping Obama and his Democrat comrades in their attempts to perpetrate a new tax Americans on carbon usage.
Via the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset, it has become undisputed fact that global warming isn't - experts and pundits alike are searching for the reasons why and how this gross prediction failure took place, with most concurring (even the NY Times) that climate models' sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels was severely exaggerated - go figure
Multiple outlets, including the NY Times, have recently written about new research that is finding climate models' programmed sensitivity to CO2 levels being pegged too high. Sample articles explaining the underlying problem with climate sensitivity research can be found here, here , here, here, and here.
The adjacent chart points to the serious problem with the original high sensitivity estimates from the IPCC and others. (The gold-standard HadCRUT global and CET temperature datasets are plotted.)
In the case of the IPCC, they published a flat-out fear-mongering sensitivity that in computer simulations would produce a temperature increase of +6.4°C (pink line) by 2100AD, if CO2 emissions were not stabilized. This incredibly high computer output was designed to scare policymakers and the mainstream media into action.
And, there are even higher published estimates of sensitivity, which will never happen in the real-world, but are touted as potential realistic threats (climate science gospel) to the gullible with deep pockets and a pennant for government intrusion. Case in point:
“...one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action..." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
As a reminder, this description of a scientist's behavior comports with the incredible level of climate scientist fraud, deception and falsehoods revealed by the embarrassing publication of the Climategate emails. Venal, corrupt anti-science attitudes continue to run blatant and deep in the climate science community.
Back to the chart...in reality, CO2 emissions have not stabilized, they are growing in a 'business as usual' manner yet the impact on global temperatures has been minimal. As the chart depicts, over the last 15 years global warming is increasing at a 0.17°C per century rate, a sliver-fraction of the IPCC absurd sensitivity simulated outcome. Other straight red lines on the chart tell the same story - the IPCC's climate sensitivity produces temperature predictions out-of-touch with this real-world empirical observational evidence.
"But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot
readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All
the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle
comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on,
the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle." quote from climate modeler, AGW proponent James Annan
The same story holds true for the chart's plot of Central England Temperatures (CET) (green curve and lines). Over the last 15-years, the CET century trend is a surprisingly minus 3.8°C. That is a significant cooling trend (in contrast, the last 15 years has the U.S. at a minus 0.94°C trend) that should not happen in a high sensitivity, tipping-point type of warming world.
#1. There is no scientific consensus about the correct climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
#2. A scientific consensus is building though regarding the IPCC and other climate model agencies having exaggerated the sensitivity in the past, and a need to lower the models' said sensitivity to better match reality.
#3. Past real-world global warming (see jagged red chart curve) is not dangerous, nor accelerating - instead, it is presently flat with an equal possibility of becoming a cooling trend, or resuming its non-alarming warming trend
#4. CO2 levels would appear to have a weak influence on both global and regional temperatures.
The United Nations IPCC climate agency has a gold-standard dataset used since 2007 to make global climate predictions - the HadCRUT3 gold-standard confirms that the predicted dangerous global warming is non-existent, and unequivocally, that CO2 is not the world's thermostat
Taxpayer-funded climate scientists and ideologue politicians have continuously predicted that the globe will suffer from dangerous global warming; and they claimed that human CO2 emissions acted as the world's climate thermostat.
As the adjacent chart reveals, the IPCC's own temperature gold-standard (HadCRUT3) refutes the "experts" and "elites" hysterical, anti-science prognostications:
#1. The global temperature dataset clearly indicates that the world has exhibited a slight global cooling trend since the spike in temps from the super El Niño of 1997/98. That's 180 months (15 years) of non-dangerous global warming.
#2. The chart's thin black line is a plot of the monthly changes in CO2 levels. The correlation between monthly temperature and CO2 changes ranges from slim to none - this supposed thermostat relation of CO2 to temperatures has a ludicrously low R2 of 0.01. CO2 is not only not a "thermostat," it's likely not even a major climate forcing, per the actual data.
#3. While global temperatures have been slightly cooling, the global changes in monthly CO2 levels have been slightly increasing (note smooth grey curve - a 2nd order fit).
#4. Simply stated, this actual IPCC gold-standard empirical evidence robustly refutes all the anti-science predictions/claims of climate "experts" and alarmist "elites."
And, as we are currently witnessing, the green-sharia, anti-human fanatics are now having to do some serious crawling-back from their previous anti-CO2 agenda and bogus-science blinders to the climate reality.
Taxpayers have spent billions on CO2-driven climate model "science," which the empirical evidence now suggests was like pouring money down a rat-hole....the abysmal prediction failure of CO2-centric models is simply fact - are there actual scientific models that can replace this current wasteland of biased AGW climate research?
As major mainstreamnewsoutlets are starting to report, global warming has essentially disappeared, replaced with a slight cooling trend in recent years. Taxpayer-funded climate scientists are finally being forced to go on record stating the obvious - their global warming predictions were incorrect.
Their favorite euphemism to describe what is happening is that global warming is at a "standstill." Even the most infamous climate reality denier has started using that terminology to describe a decade of non-existent warming - he can't quite yet bring himself to say global cooling.
Three of the above charts (top-left, top-right and bottom-left) represent the state-of-the-art models used by the "consensus" climate experts. As seen, all three have been spectacularly wrong through the end of 2012.
These three models (World Climate Research Programme, NASA-GISS and the IPCC) are CO2-centric climate models - global warming and climate change are primarily driven by levels of atmospheric CO2. As a result, they have long predicted dangerous and accelerating global warming for Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces - and it bears repeating, they have been spectacularly wrong.
The majority of scientists now agree that these "consensus" science models are flawed (at least 97% of scientists would agree ;-) and are incapable of accurately predicting global temperatures. Thus, newer models based on non-CO2 drivers of climate are starting to see the light of day, so-to-speak.
One such newer model is represented by the bottom-right chart above. This model appears to have better global temperature prediction capabilities, which also happens to verify that CO2 is not the principal climate driver, as scientists on the taxpayer dole claim (and misrepresent).
The atmospheric humidity levels that NOAA researchers publish continue to trend lower than climate model predictions - however, the mythical runaway global warming that catastrophic global warming (CAGW) alarmists promulgate requires atmospheric humidity to increase
The IPCC, and its legion of green-sharia scientists on the taxpayer dole, have publicly stated that the climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels is high, with a predicted result of dangerous accelerated warming - the NOAA global temperature dataset proves that climate sensitivity is likely a fraction of IPCC's estimate
The UN's IPCC continues to claim that the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 levels. This high sensitivity, in combination with the mythical positive feedbacks, will thus supposedly increase global warming some 4 to 6 degrees centigrade by year 2100.
However, the actual temperature data do not support this speculative AGW hypothesis. If the climate was highly sensitive to CO2, then the adjacent plot of data would look substantially different.
Because of the huge increase over the 50 years ending 2012, the global temperature increase should be significantly larger than the previous 50-year period ending 1962. Clearly, levels of atmospheric CO2 are not as all powerful as the IPCC fear-mongering would have us believe.
In fact, despite an increase of CO2 levels that was 4 times larger than the previous 50-year period, the global temperatures ending 2012 increased less, suggesting that the climate sensitivity to CO2 ranges from lame to very weak.
This is not the only evidence that the IPCC's exaggerated claim of high sensitivity is scientifically suspect: see here, here, here and here.
The IPCC predicted that global warming would result from increased atmospheric CO2 levels - however, since the beginning of the 1997 Super El Nino, global cooling has been the result
(click on image to enlarge)
The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled - a total of 184 months. This cooling trend took place during a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
This slight cooling trend is opposite of what the IPCC (and NASA's James Hansen) predicted for global temperatures.
The IPCC prediction of rapid global warming is based on the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions would increase atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels; the increase of greenhouse gases would allow more radiated heat to be retained; the retained heat would warm the atmosphere; and, the atmosphere would then warm the world's oceans and land surfaces. Such predicted warming would set in motion a "runaway tipping point" that would produce catastrophic climate disasters and a doomsday for civilization.
Instead, as the adjacent chart indicates, the lower atmosphere since 1997 (per the RSS satellite measurements) has actually been exhibiting a cooling trend, versus the the obvious warming trend for the January 1980 to April 1997 period (red curve on chart).
Like the RSS dataset, the HadCRUT global temperatures also exhibit almost the same warming/cooling dichotomy. What is very apparent in both datasets is that the '97-98 Super El Niño shifted temperatures up to a new level, which then global temperatures resumed their normal variation around. Subsequent to this temperature range shift, growing CO2 emissions have not caused the long predicted "global warming."
#1. Satellite measurements reveal both a modest global warming and very slight global cooling period since 1980.
#2. Levels of atmospheric CO2 appear to have no consistent influence on global temperatures since 1980.
#3. Global warming is not "irrefutable," "unequivocal," "rapidly increasing," "accelerating," "incontrovertible," "indisputable," "unquestionable" nor "unprecedented." It's quite the opposite of all these qualifiers.
#4. Any IPCC scientist, climate researcher, academic, government bureaucrat, journalist and pundit who states and/or implies that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth,' is, quite honestly, a serious liar. The empirical evidence is the scientific truth, not a person's blatant verbal misrepresentation.
#5. Politicians and celebrities who state and/or imply that any 'qualifier' in point #3 is the 'truth' is at best, stuck-on-stupid. Unfortunately, that seems to be the dominating characteristic of individuals involved in the political, sports and entertainment worlds. (Although, with politicians it may not be the case of being stupid, instead it may be more of a case of being criminally corrupt in order to enrich himself via "green" projects - think Solyndra.)
#6. As the satellite data show, the hot summer in the U.S. was not a result of global warming (as suggested by many covered by points #5 and #6) since global atmospheric temperatures during May, June and July were not extreme nor unusual.
Climate doomsday alarmists often fabricate extreme climate change scenarios that have no basis in reality - one such scenario is that global warming, from rising CO2 emissions, will make U.S. East Coast winter storms worse
Read here. The vast majority of climate disaster scenarios, which climate doomsday scientists and pundits predict, are never realized. The increasing intensity and frequency of severe storms is one such failed prediction.
The IPCC's political-agenda scientists, and most Hollywood celebrities concurred, that the supposed global warming from human CO2 emissions would produce more severe winter storms ('nor'easters') on the U.S. East Coast resulting in untold devastation and human misery.
Researchers decided to analyze the empirical evidence to determine if the Hollywood and IPCC "scientists" were correct. As this included chart reveals, over the last 55 years, there is no evidence that storm intensity increased despite the huge increase in CO2 Emissions.
"The authors write that "East Coast Winter Storms (ECWS), commonly known as nor'easters, are among the most severe weather phenomena to impact the Northeastern United States,"...defined an ECWS as an area of low pressure with a closed circulation, moving in a general south-southwest to north-northeast direction and containing winds greater than 10.3 m/sec during at least one 6-hour period,"... they calculated the speeds of all ECWS over the 55-year period 1951-2006...researchers report that "the speed of ECWS during their passage over or near the east coast of the United states varied substantially from storm to storm, month to month, and season to season." However,...over the entire time period of their study, Bernhardt and DeGaetano rightly declare "there was no clear trend in ECWS speed."" [Jase E. Bernhardt and Arthur T. DeGaetano 2012: Natural Hazards]
Conclusions: The long predicted extreme climate change from CO2 levels and global warming has not happened. There has not been an increase/decrease of East Coast severe winter storms that would indicate a noteworthy change in existing natural climate variation.
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
IPCC climate doomsday advocates predict all sorts of calamitous, extreme climate change events from human CO2 emissions that seemingly fail to materialize - the lack of increased heavy precipitation events across the U.S. is another one of those failed predictions
Read here. Climate scientists again reviewed the empirical weather evidence to determine if there has been a surge of heavy precipitation events, as predicted by the IPCC and its climate models.
Per the IPCC and its climate doomsday acolytes, human CO2 emissions causes increased warming that causes greater water evaporation, which in turn will increase the frequency and volume of rainfall incidents. Obviously, the increase in heavy rainfall would then likely lead to an increase in flooding disaster incidents. The IPCC's climate models have been programmed to follow that assumption.
Yet when researchers actually check the climate model predictions against weather reality, the IPCC models are rarely correct. Mahajan et al. just determined that to be the case for the IPCC's heavy rainfall prediction.
"Noting that "extreme events of precipitation have a potential for impacting our social and economic activities,"...state that it is "essential to determine if there has been a systematic change in the extremes over the past years and what awaits us in the future owing to global warming," especially in light of the fact that "climate model projection studies suggest that intense precipitation would be on the rise as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gas forcings in the future..."trends in monthly heavy precipitation, defined by a return period of one year, are assessed for statistical significance in observations and Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations over the contiguous United States...report that trends estimated from the two data sources they employed "straddle the margin of statistical significance, and hence a definitive answer to the question of increasing trend of heavy precipitation over the US cannot be arrived at by looking at observational data." And with nearly half (9 out of 20) of the GCMs employed in their study predicting trends that are "significantly different from the observations," they are forced to conclude that "the GCMs are not yet fully capable of simulating extremes of precipitation at a regional level,"" [Salil Mahajan, Gerald R. North, R. Saravanan, Marc G. Genton 2012: Climate Dynamics]
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions, and the supposed global warming, are not causing an increase in heavy precipitation events across the U.S. as predicted. The IPCC's climate models again fail a crucial test when their output is compared to actual weather reality.
Read here. The vast majority of scientific research using actual climate evidence continues to disprove the doomsday predictions of the IPCC's climate modelers. The hypothesized catastrophic climate disasters that would be considered outside normal climate variation are just not happening.
The latest study confirming the failed predictions of the IPCC was completed by Tramblay et al. regarding extreme rainfall incidents in Morocco.
"Morocco is a North African country highly vulnerable to extreme precipitation events. In the present study, past trends in extreme precipitation and future projections using an ensemble of regional climate models (RCM) are evaluated." [Yves Tramblay, Wafae Badi, Fatima Driouech, Salaheddine El Adlouni, Luc Neppel, Eric Servat 2012: Global and Planetary Change]
"The authors write that "climate change is likely to produce more extreme precipitation events,"...they say that "for the Mediterranean basin, several studies indicate a possible amplification of precipitation extremes associated with a decrease of precipitation totals...which "could lead to an increased probability of occurrence of events inducing both floods and droughts"...employed data for ten measuring stations - Casablanca, Rabat, Larache and Tanger (Atlantic coast), Tetouan, Al Hoceima, Nador and Oujda (Mediterranean region), and Fes and Ifrane (Atlas mountainous area) - which they carefully analyzed for signs of the predicted precipitation-related phenomena..."Quoting the six scientists who performed the work, "the Mann-Kendall test indicates no significant trends in the data series for all the stations at the 5% significance level," and in like manner they report that "the Deviance test results between stationary generalized extreme value [GEV] models and non-stationary GEV models with time as covariate [also] indicate no evidence of trends in extreme precipitation for all the Moroccan stations.""
'C3' Editor Conclusions: The IPCC predicted extreme climate change as represented by severe precipitation events is not happening. This research out of Morocco seems to corroborate previous research done across the globe indicating a lack of discernible trend for severe precipitation events.
Good news, the global warming science facts and reality prevail - the scary, dangerous rising sea level predictions are essentially a myth
(click images to enlarge)
#1. The actual sea level rise has just been a fraction of the scary Hollywood movie disaster scenarios
#2. Climate doomsday scientists, such as James Hansen, Heidi Cullen and Stefan Rahmstorf, predicted mythically high ocean levels, not because of science reality, but instead to emulate what Hollywood was doing to attract greater public attention
#3. Per the advanced satellite technology and ocean science, the real empirical evidence points to a sea level increase by 2100 that will literally be chump change, not the envisioned Hollywood (or Hansen et al.) mega-disaster
Since late 1992, satellites have been monitoring ocean levels constantly. The chart on the left plots the actual sea level rise (using inches instead of millimeters) in contrast to the IPCC's predicted sea level rise by 2100 AD, and common predictions of doomsday experts. The dotted aqua line is where sea levels will be if the current trend continues until 2100.
When the current sea level trend (+0.12 inch/year) is put into the context of the mega-scary predicted levels, the hysterical concerns about coastal flooding disasters are rationally reduced, dramatically. But to keep those irrational concerns high, here's how government-funded scientists portray the same sea level increase since 1992.
The chart on the top right compares the IPCC and other alarmist predictions, from the end of 2006 to April 2012, the most recent satellite measurement available. The blue bar is the actual amount the sea levels have increased, versus what the IPCC predicted increase for sea levels by April 2012. IPCC predicted sea level. The chart's higher red bars show increases by April 2012 for the often made alarmist predictions that the mainstream press reports uncritically (as gospel).
[Note: Why 2006? The IPCC 2007 report based its sea level prediction on measurements prior to 2007. We used the December 2006 satellite measurement as the base month, then calculated the April 2012 sea level increase (actual and all predicted values) from that 2006 base month. We first converted all measurements to inches then calculated each month's average sea level from multiple monthly measurements - satellites measure ocean levels 2-4 times per month.]
Conclusions: The high technology of satellite measurements produces some very clear global warming science facts. Since 1992, rising sea levels are on a very modest upward trend. Since the IPCC report of 2007, actual sea level increases are significantly below all "expert" predictions. The empirical evidence clearly points to future sea level increases that are very moderate (less than 1 foot by 2100) and can easily be adapted to by every government.
The IPCC's climate doomsday scientists have been predicting that modern global warming would cause extreme climate change leading to an increase of severe weather events - new EU-Netherlands research proves the alarmists wrong
Read here. The Dutch are use to stormy weather and have a long history of recording such events. A researcher decided to investigate the records going back 101 years to determine if severe weather incidents had increased.
"In another blow to the alarmist fallacy that climate change is causing more extreme weather, a paper published today in the journal Climatic Change finds that windstorm damage in the Netherlands is presently the lowest over the entire 101 year period of study...The resulting windstorm loss time-series for the Netherlands contains some interesting features. Annual losses are stable over the whole period and have a dominant cycle with a period of about 50 years. The Netherlands is currently experiencing the minimum aggregate storm damage of the past 100 years, though only slightly lower than a quiet period of 50 years ago. Both of these minima are driven primarily by lowered rates of occurrence of damaging storms." [Stephen Cusack 2012: Climatic Change]
Conclusion: As this new peer reviewed study demonstrates, human CO2 emissions are not causing extreme climate change in the EU region of the Netherlands. Previous studies have also found severe weather incidents not increasing over the modern era, around the world.
Read here. New discoveries and new extraction techniques in recent years have made fools of those experts spewing the 'peak oil' mantra.
The actual evidence reveals how spectacularly wrong the consensus was:
"1. Contrary to what most people believe, oil is not in short supply and oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption. From a purely physical point of view, there are huge volumes of conventional and unconventional oils still to be developed, with no “peak-oil” in sight.
2. The shale/tight oil boom in the United States is not a temporary bubble, but the most important revolution in the oil sector in decades.
3. In the aggregate, conventional oil production is also growing throughout the world...Huge parts of the world are still relatively unexplored for conventional oil
4. Over the next decades, the growing role of unconventional oils will make the Western hemisphere the new center of gravity of oil exploration and production."
A new study by climate doomsday scientists came to the conclusion that the penguins would become extinct because climate models predicted warmer temperatures and less ice in Antarctica - however, the actual empirical evidence finds climate models to be wrong
Read here and here. The IPCC's global and regional climate models are based on a high climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels. As a result, the models predict a warmer Antarctica with a loss of sea ice.
Using the IPCC models' output as input, another computer model thus predicted the extinction of Antarctica's penguins. Essentially, to be blunt, this is crappy science based on the familiar data processing concept known as 'GIGO'.
To the surprise of no one, with the exception of most lame stream science reporters, the GIGO penguin study has now been harpooned by actual empirical evidence and Antarctica climate reality.
"Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all..."Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,"...The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
"According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research: "It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception...that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass."
Conclusions: Incredibly crappy penguin study based solely on GIGO computer simulations dies on the harpoon of actual empirical evidence. Antarctica and the surrounding seas are not appreciably warming from human CO2 emissions as predicted by the IPCC's climate models.
Read here. The United Nation's IPCC has been extremely open about their perversion of climate science and how the political agenda rules the roost (the UN's Rio conference being the next).
A key means to manipulate the world's policymakers and the public is to wildly exaggerate potential catastrophic disasters inferring a high likelihood. A favorite IPCC "disaster" is the rising seas caused by human CO2 emissions. A rise so high that will consume low-lying tropical islands and their cultures. But does that "looming" disaster have real merit?
Nope. Coastal tide gauges from around the world, documented in study after study, show that the current sea level rise is very modest and might reach a measly 3 to 7 inches by 2100.
But what about the vulnerable natives of Pacific island atolls? A recent peer reviewed article describes the situation of Tarawa of the Gilbert Islands.
"These common images of flooded homes and waves crashing across the causeways—collected during an anomalous event on islets susceptible to flooding due in part to local modifications to the environment—can provide the false impression that Tarawa is subject to constant flooding because of sea level rise...Many individual observations of erosion, flooding, or groundwater salinization, recorded in community consultations for internationally funded climate change adaptation programs, are thus attributed to climate change without scientific analysis...These events are presented as examples of climate change impacts in promotional materials and at international events...The failure to consider the contribution of natural variability and direct human modifications can lead to misattribution of flooding events or shoreline changes to sea level rise...Instead of incorrectly attributing individual flood events or shoreline changes to global sea level rise, scientists and climate communicators can use such occurrences to educate the public about the various natural and human processes that affect sea level, the shoreline, and the shape of islands."
Conclusion: The IPCC climate change reports include wild exaggerations about potential climate disasters. There is no empirical evidence supporting these looming disasters from human CO2 emissions. The United Nations promulgates these non-scientific claims as fact at UN-sponsored conferences in order to promote their wealth redistribution political agenda. A classic example of this misrepresentation is the fraud that Pacific islands will be swamped by an extraordinary sea level rise, exclusively from human CO2 emissions.
The IPCC predictions of severe weather events, such as droughts, floods, storms and etc. due to global warming has been a rather embarrassing failure - and another study confirms that extreme climate change is not happening as result of warming
Read here. The UN, the IPCC and a group of climate doomsday scientists continue to predict an increase of severe weather from modern warming (which has gone missing for the last 15 years), plus constantly claim that any recent drought or flood or storm or whatever is the result of CO2 emissions and associated warming.
Unfortunately for them, their actual proof is literally non-existent - they have no empirical evidence to stand on, other than anecdotal stories and/or singular, one-off events. Instead, they base their predictions and their foolish claims on computer simulations. Of course, what they always fail to mention is that the climate models were programmed by the climate model "scientists" to produce severe weather event predictions from...wait...take a guess...yes!, from global warming.
However, as a plethora of studies before it, the Buntgen et al. research again finds that severe precipitation weather events have not increased in number or intensity as modern global warming took place.
"The authors state that anthropogenically-induced climate change is projected by climate models to increase the frequency, severity and probability of extreme meteorological phenomena; and many climate alarmists claim that we have been experiencing this effect of global warming...the nine researchers analyzed 11,873 annually-resolved and absolutely-dated ring-width measurement series from living and historical fir trees that had been sampled across France, Switzerland, Germany and the Czech Republic, and which continuously spanned the AD 962-2007 period...discovered there was "a fairly uniform distribution of hydroclimatic extremes throughout the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age and Recent Global Warming,"...extreme hydroclimatic phenomena were found to not be amplified in either number or strength in response to global warming, which leads one to suspect that the same likely holds true for other portions of the planet, in contradiction of vociferous climate-alarmist claims to the contrary." [Ulf Büntgen, Rudolf Brázdil, Karl-Uwe Heussner, Jutta Hofmann, Raymond Kontic, Tomáš Kyncl, Christian Pfister, Kateřina Chromá, Willy Tegel 2011: Quaternary Science Reviews]
Conclusion: Extreme climate change, in the form of increased and more powerful severe weather events, is not occurring as a result of modern global warming. The actual empirical evidence as presented in peer reviewed studies does not support the catastrophic weather predictions of the IPCC and climate doomsday scientists.
The global warming science facts continue to robustly challenge the "consensus" global warming hypothesis - despite prodigious amounts of CO2 emissions, a global cooling trend exists
(click on image to enlarge)
Here is the typical plot of the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperatures. As a change in pace, a different depiction of "global warming" is adjacent.
The left side of this chart reveals the current 15-yr per century global temperature change trend (-0.12 degree), as of April 2012 - the blue bar near the bottom. The grey bar represents the massive amount of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere over the last 15 calendar years.
In contrast, for the previous 15 years ending April 1997, the red bar represents the per century temperature change trend (+1.08 degree) and partially hidden grey bar the total human CO2 emissions released during the calendar year span of 1982 - 1996.
The data portrayed in this chart, when combined, represents the last 30 years (360 consecutive months, starting May 1982 and ending April 2012) of human CO2 emissions and global temperature change.
Conclusions: The global warming science facts do not support the IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis that is continuously promulgated by bureaucrats and paid-off scientists. A global cooling trend has developed despite the IPCC's climate model predictions and the immense human CO2 emissions over the last 15 years (a 1.7 times increase over the 15-yr period ending in 1996) . Catastrophic, dangerous, unequivocal, accelerating and unprecedented global warming are non-existent as of April 2012. In summary, the data strongly and irrefutably suggest that human CO2 emissions are not a powerful greenhouse gas and that, instead, natural climate forces are the likely primary drivers of global temperature changes.