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.
It is now an indisputable fact that the IPCC's "dangerous", "accelerating" and "tipping point" global warming has gone completely AWOL. This has been well documented empirically, as this temperature chart through October 2013 reveals.
Does this now mean global warming is kaput, in permanent hibernation? Nope.
But it does mean that the IPCC's climate scientists were wrong about future global warming, and that the consensus is now changing due to actual climate reality.
Serious discussions about global cooling have become the reality, much to the chagrin of climate "experts" and IPCC cohorts who have wasted multi-billions on the global warming hysteria.
The scientific pivot to cooling confirms what many have thought and said over the last few decades: human CO2 emissions do have a warming influence on global temperatures but, with that said, it is a minor factor that is easily overwhelmed by both solar/cosmic and natural earthly forces. Apparently, the CO2 impact is so weak it is unable to stop this unexpected (by the IPCC) cooling momentum that could wreak havoc on agriculture and economies.
The adjacent plot (click on chart to enlarge) of global HadCRUT October temperature anomalies from two different periods clearly documents the minor impact of human CO2 emissions.
The IPCC claims that since 1950 global temperatures have been driven by the massive human CO2 emissions. Yet when one examines the October temperature records, it is found that the last 64 years of global warming (1950-2013) is very similar to the global warming pattern for the 64-year period ending in 1949.
The chart's two ten-year moving average curves for the respective periods indicate a similarity that is striking, especially considering that modern human CO2 emissions are many multiples larger than the pre-1950 emissions. Adding to that similarity is the fact that the linear trends for October temperatures are almost the same - only an 18/100ths difference if both trends were extended out the 87 years to October 2100AD.
Indeed, a portion of that small linear trend difference might be due to human CO2 emissions; or, then again, it might be due to the vast urbanization effect over the last 60+ years; or due to the large deforestation that's taken place; or, maybe it's entirely due to the serial fabrication of global warming by the world's climate agencies; or it's even possible that the post-1950 warming was entirely a natural phenomenon - the same as the prior 64-year period experience.
Not only have the IPCC climate models performed poorly on a global basis, their predictive skill capability on important regional climates approach being abysmal also.
As this new peer reviewed study concludes, the models being used to predict sea surface temperatures for the tropical Pacific have produced results that have standard deviations of some 200% stronger versus observed measurements since the Super El Niño of 1997/98. Not good. Confirms previous studies of climate models.
Essentially, the demonstrably large failures of both global and regional climate models represent a systemic failure created by those consensus "experts."
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.
As has been noted by publications across the world, the new IPCC AR5 report confirms that the past catastrophic global warming alarmism, relentlessly pushed by the IPCC community, is essentially without scientific merit.
From the editors of the Nature journal comes this scathing comment about the new report:
"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."
And of course, there is the amazing admission in the 'AR5' report that those soon-to-be, just-around-the-corner climate disasters, that were repeated ad nausem over the last two decades, are no longer on-the-table, so to speak.
And adding to the IPCC's misery, the latest scientific empirical evidence is not kind. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are similar to a furnace's "thermostat" or a "control-knob" has proven also to be a pseudo-science claim, which actual scientists now consider an embarrassment best forgotten.
Regarding that "thermostat" claim, the above plot of the satellite temperature dataset confirms that even 3-year CO2 changes have apparently zero impact on on 3-year changes. (As previously noted, the last 15 years of global temperature change has revealed a zero impact from changing monthly CO2 levels during that period.)
This chart also includes a plot of human CO2 emissions in gigatons since 1981. Clearly, the gigantic-sized annual emissions are not affecting temperature change, as measured by the satellites. With that said, the exhibited increasing 3-year change of atmospheric CO2 levels may indeed be a result of growing tonnage of human emissions.
In summary, the IPCC's alarmism climate "science" has been torpedoed by its own report and admissions, as well as being completely undermined by the actual empirical evidence. This has not only been recently recognized by the mainstream press, but now the major scientific journals supporting the "consensus" view have finally taken note.
Note: Datasets plotted in this Excel chart can be located here. The temperature and atmospheric CO2 level plots represent 36-month (3-year) changes (e.g. subtract the September 2010 temperature anomaly from the September 2013 anomaly). The dark black, grey and bright red curves are second order polynomial fitted trends produced by Excel - they are not predictions, but they do indicate the current direction the trends are taking.
The principal reason they did not address the temperature empirical evidence, as represented in this plot of the data, is that any rational and objective explanation completely undercuts the shaky foundations of the CO2-AGW hypothesis.
The plotted data clearly shows that the previous modern global warming has shrunk to an insignificant per century rate, and may continue to decrease over the near future. This occurs while the levels and growth of atmospheric CO2 continue a relentless climb.
It has been widely noted across the entire blogosphere
(and even the mainstream
press outlets) that the IPCC AR5 summary report avoided the very uncomfortable
truth that modern global warming has gone literally AWOL over the last 15+ years, and the associated
IPCC climate models' spectacular failure to predict
this non-global warming environment.
Understandably, the IPCC's political bureaucrats don't
want to shine a light on their previously claimed "irreversible",
"incontrovertible", "irrefutable", "unequivocal",
"indisputable", "relentless", "dangerous" and
"accelerating" CO2-warming that has turned into the unprecedented
The IPCC's lack of analysis regarding this 15-year
"pause" was replaced with an attempt to obscure the current temperature reality with a laughable decadal
analysis. 'C3' previously
commented on the lameness of the IPCC's decadal 'smoke and mirrors' as did others
The IPCC's decadal approach to relied on 'decadal means.'
There are other approaches, including analyzing decade-end
temperatures, decadal-trends as shown
here or by examining the moving 10-year (decadal) periods.
(click on image to enlarge, sources for HC4 and CO2 data)
In this article, we look at the moving decadal spans
since January 1, 1950 through August 2013 (the IPCC states that at least 50% of
the warming is due to anthropogenic reasons over this 764-month period) versus
the previous 764-month period (May 1, 1886 through December 1949) that the IPCC
infers was dominated by natural climate forces.
From the two 764-month periods, it is possible to
generate 645 moving 10-year average data points for both the modern era and the earlier 20th century period. The
above two charts plot the moing decadal data points for both periods.
Per an examination of the 10-year moving averages for
each time span, there are several points of interest, including:
the vast differences between the two period's absolute CO2 levels and growth
rates, the warming characteristics of the two periods are more alike than
ten-year curves, and their respective 2nd order fits, visually share similar
characteristics such that one could easily and safely conclude that the modern warming was simply a repeat of the
earlier period's warming (note: recall,
the IPCC states that the earlier warming was not due to anthropogenic reasons).
10-year moving average curves reveal that both the earlier and modern periods
experienced a cooling phase, then a significant warming phase prior to leveling
out to a plateau (a 'hiatus') close to the end.
warming phase during the modern era was 417 months in duration; the early 20th
century period had a warming phase of 397 months (only a 20-month difference).
on 10-year moving averages, the earlier warming period produced a +0.75°C per century trend, which is not that terribly
different than the modern warming of a 1.16°C per century trend.
modern warming were to revert to the earlier warming trend (after the "hiatus"), by year 2100AD
global temperatures would increase by +0.65°C. In contrast, a continuation of
the modern warming trend would produce an increase of +0.99°C, just one-third
of a degree greater.
comparing the differences between the lowest to highest 10-year average
temperature for each warming period, the modern change was less than one-tenth
modern era's CO2 level absolute increase and linear trend growth were both
approximately 5 times greater than the earlier periods respective values.
the earlier period's degree change per ppm was over 3 times greater than that
experienced during the modern warming.
Obviously, this type of decadal analysis reveals an
abundance of similarities shared by the two 20th century warming periods. In
fact, this analysis makes it clear that over 50% of the modern global warming
could be a direct result of the same natural climate forces that warmed the world
prior to the 1950s.
This analysis also directly contradicts the IPCC's
anti-science terminology ("irreversible", "incontrovertible",
"irrefutable", "unequivocal", "indisputable",
"relentless", "dangerous", "accelerating" and
"unprecedented") used to
describe the modern era of warming. Simply put, none of these descriptors are
accurate - they are without any empirical scientific merit.
Unsaid in this analysis (and the IPCC's) is that portion
of modern warming associated with anthropogenic factors is not exclusively due
to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other anthropogenic forces causing increases
includes a wide spectrum of land-use issues, black soot pollution, 'slash and
burn' deforestation practices, the urban heat island (UHI) effect, poorly sited
climate/weather stations, the egregious fabrication
of modern global warming by governmental climate agencies and other factors.
Finally, this decadal analysis reveals the absolute known
physics of CO2-induced warming: per the actual physics, it has been established
that the climate response (i.e. global temperatures) is logarithmic.
This means that the earlier rises of atmospheric levels (ppm) of CO2 have
a much greater impact on the climate than the later CO2 increases (ppm).
As the charts detail, the CO2 impact on temperature
degrees was 3 times greater during the early warming than the modern warming
(+0.23°C per CO2 ppm
versus +0.007°C per
CO2 ppm). This confirms the actual climate science physics, while at the same time pretty much
demolishing the fears of the totally speculative, failed and unsubstantiated
"positive feedback" physics that alarmists continue to rely on.
The well documented lack of global warming over the last 15+ years has proven to be a major problem for the latest IPCC AR5 report.
In prior reports, the IPCC has utilized short-term warming as proof that greenhouse gases were the cause, and supposedly proved climate model accuracy. But in this report, the IPCC dismisses the latest 15-year period as being too short to rely on.
Despite this dismissal, the IPCC AR5 report does make an attempt to explain why global warming went AWOL. One of the reasons they state is that global warming decided to dive into the ocean depths where it is currently hiding (and somehow also escaped original detection).
The "hiding" excuse has been picked up by mainstream science journalists without their doing any due diligence on the veracity of the IPCC statement or at least reviewing the actual empirical evidence.
"It’s clear science journalists need some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures — not realizing they convert to a mere 0.07C over nearly 50 years (as if we could measure the average temperature of the global oceans to a hundredth of a degree!). Worse, the warming we do find is so small, it supports the skeptical calculations, not the IPCC’s ones."
A number of experts have analyzed the "global-warming-is-hiding" claim and found it to be, at best, laughable. To add to the bogosity, the IPCC and other serial climate-change exaggerators have attempted to hide the real impact of global warming on the oceans by using a 'gazillion-bazillion' Joules to portray the gain in ocean heat.
A common way they have expressed the effect is to state that it has increased by an approximate 2.0*1023Joules (or, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules). But when converted to actual temperature warming, that number, with all those zeros, equates to about a total of +0.06°C to +0.07°C increase since 1955.
Laughable, no? This level of warming is barely even measurable and irrefutably indicates that CO2 emissions have barely impacted the top 2000 meters of the oceans.
The adjacent three graphs (click to enlarge) depict the warming that has occurred in degrees, as well as Joules. For more information about these charts, done by experts, go here, here and here.
And their work is confirmed by no less than NOAA:
"For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."
In addition, the list of articles addressing the IPCC's gross misrepresentation of ocean warming (the "hiding" bogosity) is growing: read here, here, here, here and here.
Note: A 'gazillion-bazillion' is not recognized as a real number. FWIW, a number with 23 zeros does fall between the 'sextillion' and 'septillion' nomenclature. 'Gazillion-bazillion' sounds better though.
The recent IPCC 'AR5' summary report was essentially an admission of failure for the catastrophic human-induced global warming hypothesis. The admission was blatantly obvious as the IPCC bureaucrats did not deliver an adequate explanation for the last 15+ years of non-warming, plus they were unable to even establish what current climate science believes the critical climate sensitivity measure to be.
As result, the IPCC had to resort to lame, non-scientific descriptors such as "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" that were without meaningful empirical evidence. Below is an analysis of their supposed "unprecedented" decadal warming, that when dissected, is beyond lame. (click on charts to enlarge)
These two graphs plot decades-ending global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The graph on the left represents decades prior to the 1950s, and the second graph, those decades subsequent to the 1960s.
Some observations based on this empirical evidence:
#1. From the decade ending in 1909, there were 4 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher at decade-end (the increase from 1909 to 1919 was indeed very small but nevertheless, it was a warming.).
#2. In the modern era, since 1979, there has been only 3 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher - ergo, the warming prior to the 1950s remains "unprecedented" in terms of decadal duration.
#3. Clearly, the modern era decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) CO2 levels jumped dramatically, approximately 50 points, which is over 6 times greater than the CO2 increase during the pre-1950s decades (1920s, 1930s, 1940s)
#4. If the warming trend of the early 20th century had continued (it didn't) until the end of the 21st century (2099), global temperatures would have increased by +1.92°C; yet despite the huge modern era CO2 spike, if the warming trend represented by the last 3 decades continued (it won't), the increase by 2099 would only be +1.72°C.
#5. The IPCC states that prior to 1950 any global warming was due to natural forces - thus, the +0.41°C decadal increase during the early 20th century was due entirely to natural climate forces.
#6. The IPCC states that the modern warming decadal warming, +0.55°C, was at least 50% caused by humans - thus, it is highly likely that natural climate forces were responsible for the other 50%, say a +0.27°C of the modern warming.
#7. If only half of the modern decadal warming is due to human influences, then it is also likely that the human-caused linear trend would represent a warming rate of only +0.89°C, half the modern 3-decade full-linear trend rate of 1.78°C/century.
#8. Put another way, the pre-1950, the all-natural decadal trend rate of +1.30°C exceeds the +0.89°C modern decadal trend attributed to anthropogenic forces (including land-use, the UHI effect, and of course, greenhouse gases).
#9. If one assumes that the modern decadal warming in reality was simply a cyclical repeat of the early 20th century decades of natural warming, then in actuality, at best, the gigantic increases of CO2 levels were only responsible for maybe a mere +0.14°C increase (+0.55°C - +0.41°C = +0.14°C) over the 3 decades ending in 2009.
Summary: After 7 years of research and billions of dollars on the 'AR5' report, the best that the IPCC can come up with is the thin gruel of "unprecedented" decadal warming, which when examined closely, is a false representation of the makeup, duration and the size of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. Since the last 15 years have proven that natural climate forces simply overwhelm the CO2 impact, the likelihood that modern decadal warming is more a result of natural (non-human) climate forces is the more probable "95% certainty".
Note: Data sources for above Excel charts can be found here.
Those stubborn, ugly facts of modern climate science, documented.
Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.
They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.
Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).
If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.
The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.
Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.
And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.
The irrefutable, unequivocal, non-global warming trend continues.
As these graphs reveal, the latest NOAA temperature dataset, through August 31, 2013, confirms that the U.S. and its major crop regions are experiencing a cooling trend. (click on graphs to enlarge)
Note, this has taken place despite the largest 15-year production of human CO2 emissions, ever. Contrary to every single IPCC and U.S. climate model.
Update clarification: The above plots from the NOAA web site are based on moving 12-month periods ending in August (each 12-month period starts with a year's September temperature and ends with the following year's August temperature).
The newest IPCC climate change report is soon to be published and it is sure to include, again, grossly wrong climate model predictions of global temperature change, along with misleading cost impacts concerning any CO2 mitigation schemes.
These forthcoming IPCC misrepresentations can be compared to what is likely to happen, given the ample historical evidence at hand. For example:
•What is the cost of cutting U.S. 2012 CO2 emissions by 20%? •What's the impact on global temperature for such a reduction? •What about a 10% global cut - across the board - from the 2012 level of emissions?
The image on the left shows those resulting costs and impacts associated with respective per cent reductions.
But that's just an image. You can do better.
Use this calculator to accomplish a 'quick & dirty' estimate of impacts from hypothetical CO2 reduction schemes. The calculator will allow you to change the essential parameters (those in the yellow boxes), thus providing insight to how little we can really impact temperature change and the ludicrously high cost of attempting to do so.
This simple calculator is based on the known information about global CO2 emissions and HadCRUT4 annual (calendar year-end) global temperatures. Since the source of the global CO2 emissions only starts with 1965, that is the base year for all the simple calculator's math.
As a result, with 48 years (1965 through 2012) of data we know the following:
1. How much the global temperature (HadCRUT4) changed over 48 years.
2. The amount of CO2 emission tons that were produced over 48 years.
3. Then taking this information and using fundamental arithmetic, one can thus calculate the very small fraction of temperature change that is caused by a single ton of CO2, over the last 48 years.
That's what the calculator does.
Have at it. Decent ballpark estimates are achievable with this simple calculator and it didn't cost the taxpayers a single penny.
In fact, using the most basic math that the calculator employs, it produces better estimates of temperature change than the multi-billion dollar super computer climate models (more on that in a later post).
Update: Instead of using a global per cent CO2 emission reduction in the bottom calculator, a country per cent cut (or even a U.S. state per cent cut) can be used instead. Go here to determine country/state per cents.
The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA and other agencies promoting catastrophic global warming hope politicians and the public don't realize the significance of the fundamental physics.
Simply stated, the more CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the less influence CO2 has on global temperatures - it's a logarithmic thing.
All climate scientists know this. It's the actual hard physics. (Btw, that "positive" feedback thingy about CO2's "tipping point" impact? That's actually soft science - quasi-speculative, not hard physics.)
The adjacent chart though depicts the factual reality about the ever smaller impact of growing levels of CO2.
The reddish columns represent a plot of global temperature sensitivity to CO2. Specifically, they represent 60-year changes in global temperature divided by the corresponding 60-year change in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) - a ratio.
The bright red curve is a simple 20-period average of that ratio, which has been declining since the 1950's. Recall that it is the IPCC that states categorically that modern "dangerous" warming started in the 1950s with the growth of industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
Finally, the rapid growth of total atmospheric CO2 levels is shown by the black dots.
When it's all put together, per the IPCC, the red columns should be gaining in height as the years pass due to the accumulation of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere grows. Taller columns means that the ever increasing amounts of emissions are causing an even greater temperature change.
Clearly, the empirical evidence reveals that as atmospheric CO2 levels have grown, the impact on 60-year temperature changes has shrunk. From a high in the 1950s, to a very low impact as of 2012 (see blue column).
In summary, it's these stubborn climate facts that expose the invalidity/weakness of the AGW alarmist hypothesis. Sure, CO2 has an impact on temperatures but its maximum impact was decades ago and it is shrinking.
As human CO2 emissions continue to increase in the future, the resultant global warming will be smaller and smaller, and will continue to be overwhelmed by natural climate variation.
Note: Excel used to plot datasets. Ratio is simply the 60-year change in annual HadCRUT4 temperatures divided by the 60-year change in annual atomspheric CO2 levels. Dataset sources.
The global warming alarmist community has had to embarrassingly resort to the lamest of all fear-mongering refrains: "It's the warmest _________" (fill in the blank with decade, year, month, week, day, hour or whatever).
#1. There's been a 'rebound' warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Per history, this current, natural warming rebound has been unexceptional and could actually last another 100 years - it's happened before, go figure.
#2. As the adjacent chart reveals, the 60 years prior to 1950 had a sturdy per century warming trend of +0.79 degrees, which reflects that natural rebound since the LIA.
#3. As the chart also shows, the modern warming 60-year trend, from the start of the 1950's, was enhanced to a +1.06 degree per century trend - specifically, a +0.27°C added to the already existing rebound warming trend of +0.79°.
#4. Using a 6th order polynomial fitted trend, it's clear that a recovery warming trend started in the mid-to-late 1890s, after some prior sporadic sputtering. And it has not stopped since. Along the way the trend has been enhanced by human forces: CO2 emissions, black carbon soot, urban heat island effects and climate altering land-use impacts.
So, in essence, since 1890 we had 60 years of warming then followed by another 60 years of "modern" warming from 1950 on.
Time to put this together......really, this is not difficult to conceptualize - we've had at least 120 years of warming, with some sporadic ups/downs along the way.
We are not talking brain surgery here.
That being the case, it is obvious, with a very high likelihood, that future time periods will also be "warmer" or the "warmest" - a simple repeat from the known trend over the past 120 years.
Let's summarize: Next month, or next year or the next decade is likely to be warmer due to the natural warming rebound since the LIA. Duh.
To reiterate, this natural, built-in, dominating LIA-rebound warming trend will continue regardless of the added impacts of greenhouse gases and etc.
Thus, it is extremely lame for alarmists to fear-monger about "warmest" since it happens naturally; it is also lame to imply that CO2 is responsible for
the "warmest" anything, since natural climate change basically dictates it; and, it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the modern +1.06°C trend (only a 0.92° increase by 2100AD)
at the end of 2012 is "dangerous" or an indicator of an imminent crisis.
Note: Annual HadCRUT4 data used in above Excel chart here. Trends are not predictions nor forecasts.
The laughably named 'Skeptical Science' site (a climate/warming doomsday site) provides a a handy trend calculator, which confirms whether a linear temperature trend is actually 'real' - or in statistical parlance, is the trend 'statistically significant' or not, using the widely accepted 95% confidence interval test (2 sigma).
For example, by entering '1989.58' for August 1989 and '2013.5' for July 2013, the calculator determines the temperature/century trend (purple circle) and the 'uncertainty' (green circle) associated with that trend.
To be statistically significant or 'real', per the Skeptical Science experts, the trend (purple) has to be larger than the uncertainty (green). As can be seen, for the period chosen in this example, the 24 years (288 months) ending July 2013, the "global warming" trend is not statistically significant.
That means, because of the large uncertainty amount, the 'real' warming trend could actually be much smaller, even '0'.
So, in a nutshell, the pro-Alarmist site that constantly proclaims AGW-doomsday confirms that for 24 years the reported "global warming" may be a statistical fluke - not 'real'.
Note: This example uses the RSS dataset, which is the global temperature anomalies for the lower atmosphere. For a complete analysis of other temperature dataset trends, go here.
global HadCRUT4 dataset, updated through July 31, 2013, reveals little
warming over 15 years despite the huge influx of human CO2 emissions and
the subsequent large growth in atmospheric CO2 levels
(click on charts to enlarge)
The chart on left plots the monthly HadCRUT anomalies and monthly atmospheric levels over the last 15 years (180 months).
indicated on the chart, the linear trend for temperatures means a tiny
increase in global temperatures of a trivial +0.58 degrees by 2100AD, if
this trend were to continue (it won't).
In addition, as the R2
on the chart reveals, there has been a very weak relationship between
CO2 levels and temperature anomalies - suggesting an extremely small, to
an almost non-existent, climate sensitivity to CO2.
The chart on the right, in contrast, examines global temperature change and its relationship to CO2 in a different manner.
case of temperature, the right chart plots the the 15-year difference in
monthly anomalies. So, for example, one of the plot points is the
difference (increase/decrease) between the month of January 1850 and
January 1865 - this 15-year difference calculation is done for each month, all the way through July 2013.
The dark blue curve represents the 36-month moving average of the 15-year differences of the temperature anomalies.
15-year difference is also plotted for monthly atmospheric CO2 levels,
represented by the black curve - actually, a 36-month moving average of
the CO2 differences. (To simplify the chart, used an Excel option to
just show the 36-mth average.)
it is very clear that the 15-year differences (changes) in temperature
anomalies have little, if any, relationship to the 15-year changes in
CO2 levels. In fact, the R2 between temperature changes and
CO2 changes is absurdly low - again, suggesting a climate sensitivity to
CO2 as being rather low.
Currently, global warming on a monthly basis is immeasurable and will
amount to very little by year 2100, if this trend continues.
2. The empricial evidence is unequivocal and irrefutable, global warming is not accelerating.
3. The increasing absolute amounts of CO2 have had a small influence, at best, on temperatures during the last 15 years.
Longer-term changes in CO2 levels appear not to have even a minor impact
on long-term temperature changes - maybe a trivial impact, though.
Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Original data used with Excel to produce the plots, trends, correlations and averages. Previous temperature/climate charts.
A strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is a necessary condition of the CO2-based AGW hypothesis.
So, what does a strong correlation look like?
for example, the top chart (A) for two economic variables reveals an
incredibly strong correlation, a 'cause and effect' that is strikingly
obvious since 2007. (see original here)
bottom chart (B) reveals the correlation between temperatures
(GISS/NASA) and CO2 levels during the exact same time period as chart A.
Look carefully - THERE IS NO CORRELATION! And over the last 15 years, the R2 equals a miserably low 0.05
Unicorn climate science ignores the empirical evidence, replaced with wishful fantasies that don't exist in the real world.
P.S. Yep, the bottom chart does plot a slight cooling trend for the NASA temperature dataset since January 2007. (NASA/CO2 plot sources here; used Excel to produce the plots, linear trend and correlation)
It has been noted by others that the MSNBC news outlet and the OFA (Occupy / Obamaites) crowd are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, so to speak.
Fighting climate change, supposedly due to global warming / cooling / warming, is an idiot's Don Quixote obsession, especially since climate change is constantly happening, naturally.
And as this actual result happened at the MSNBC/OFA event, it provides proof that the public is a lot smarter than the activists.....my god, Chris Matthews et al. are truly pathetic, no?
Honestly, it just makes you wonder if MSNBC personnel are stupendously stupid or pathological liars or just need to fanatically obsessively agree with Obama despite the current climate reality - cooling.
Remember how NASA's former climate "scientist" James Hansen predicted the oceans will be boiling because of CO2...the data & experts body slam that wild exaggeration (stupidity?) while breaking no sweat
Bob Tisdale is a respected and widely quoted expert on ocean warming and cooling, who often exposes the serial falsehoods and exaggerations of the climate science establishment, much to their dismay.
In a recent article, Bob does it again, this time exposing the bogosities of both the "missing heat" by Kenneth Trenberth's missing brain and then confirming the pathological exaggeration of Hansen's "boiling oceans."
Prior to speaking to the above chart, Bob points out a flagrant propaganda ploy used by establishment climate-alarmist scientists, and the IPCC, which is never challenged by the MSM press (to paraphrase): "OMG, the oceans have warmed by 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules!" Hey, that's a lot scary warming, no?
Well.....no, it's actually not a lot of warming. The 24X1022 Joules represent, in the scheme of things, a tiny warming of the oceans - a barely measurable total of +0.09C degrees over 55 years. Of course, the climate "scientists" who use this propaganda trick don't feel inclined to point out that the ludicrous figure with all those zeros is essentially a ludicrous tiny amount of global warming.
The Tisdale chart above is a plot of NODC's ocean heat empirical dataset, and a similar dataset from the UK. Both dataset plots provide essentially the same trend: for NODC, the 100 year trend is a meager +0.16°C increase and the UK's an even tinier +0.13°C.
So, in the case of the NODC findings, the almost impossible-to-measure +0.09°C over 55 years for the top 2,000 meters of the ocean indicates future temps, a hundred years out, will equate to an almost impossible-to-measure increase of +0.16°C.
Contrasting those literal flyspeck trends to the typical James Hansen buffoonery, to boil the oceans would require the current average ocean water temperature to increase some 85°C. Per this actual ocean empirical evidence shown in the chart: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, EVAAAH!
Then there is the climate-savant Trenberth who thinks all the missing global warming has disappeared into the deep oceans. He conjectures that this 55-year increase will soon start boiling waters from underneath. Hmmm, or is it instead all those warmer ocean molecules will stage a simultaneous break-out of their deep ocean prison and immediately flash-fry humanity with an +0.16° increase?
With these two knuckleheads prominently representing the case for bogus climate alarmism, is it any wonder the most recent Gallup poll doesn't reflect even a single scintilla of the American public being impressed by global warming "scientific" hysteria.
The latest IPCC climate "expert" hypothesis that global warming causes everything, including the recent global cooling, has been verified by NOAA's up-to-date temperature dataset - through March 2013, it would definitely appear that the previous 15-year global warming caused the subsequent 180-month global cooling while atmospheric CO2 levels still remained completely irrelevant
Note: Above chart uses the NCDC global dataset published through March 2013. The left two columns (CO2 & temperature) represent the 15 years (180 months) ending March 1998, the right two columns represent the 15 years ending March 2013.
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.
While left-leaning U.S. politicians, bureaucrats and the partisan mainstream press continue to push the silly catastrophic AGW hysteria from human CO2 emissions, a significant cooling trend (per NOAA) across a critically important global breadbasket continues - if the latest 15-year global cooling trend persists, crop yields will suffer immensely
As has been well documented, global warming has gone AWOL and in some regions of the world, global cooling trends have materialized, which scientists across the world are starting to express concern with.
In the key crop regions of the U.S., there has been an extended cooling trend that persists despite the immense human CO2 emissions released over the last two decades. The above four NOAA charts depict those cooling trends across the a wide swath of American agricultural production. These charts represent the main American corn, soybean, spring and winter wheat growing areas.
What the huge U.S. breadbasket needs at this point is a few years of some good old fashioned global warming that will reverse the potential devastation a mass cooling would deliver to crop yields.
Unfortunately, though, it appears nature is not delivering what the American farmers and ranchers need this spring.
The UN's IPCC and its coterie of green-sharia "scientists" have long pursued a political agenda that requires all climate change and global warming to be a result of human CO2 emissions, and in addition, any solar impact on temperatures is absolutely minimal - yet, the empirical evidence does not support said political agenda, including the BEST maximum temperature dataset
Read here. The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) alarmists have long predicted that increasing CO2 levels will directly cause global warming to reach anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees Celsius higher in the near future. In essence the world's maximum temperatures are being exclusively driven to dangerous heights by CO2.
But is that actually happening?
The most recent empirical evidence clearly indicates that CO2 levels are not driving the average atmospheric, global and/or ocean temperatures dangerously higher. And now comes an analysis of the BEST temperature dataset, which confirms the weak driving force that CO2 appears to be.
This graph has monthly atmospheric CO2 levels superimposed onto plots of the BEST maximum temperatures for the U.S. and a solar activity proxy (i.e. Total Solar Irradiance). The blue maximum temperature plot is in sync (up and down) with the red solar activity curve. Obviously, the ever incessant rise of CO2 levels is not in sync with the up and down movements of temperature variation.
"Recent work by NCAR senior scientists Drs. Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl has also emphasized a physical relationship between incoming solar radiation and temperature. These scientists argue indirectly that, in testing for this relationship, daytime maximum temperature is the most appropriate criterion to use to characterize the temperature. This measure is available for the US from the BEST data set...The reconfirmation now of a strong sun-temperature relation based specifically upon the daytime temperature maxima adds strong and independent scientific weight to the reality of the sun-temperature connection...This suggests strongly that changes in solar radiation drive temperature variations on at least a hemispheric scale...Close correlations like these simply do not exist for temperature and changing atmospheric CO2 concentration." [Article byBob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs.]
1. Solar activity is 'best' at explaining an increase in maximum global temperatures and the related variation of global temperatures.
2. CO2 levels explain little of the amplitude of maximum temperatures and are exceptionally lame at explaining monthly variation of global temperatures.
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).
The IPCC's catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is on verge of collapse as non-existent warming facts force unpleasant admissions of truth - and, the empirical evidence implicates increasing clouds as being the culprit for the halt of warming
This chart is a plot of global "warming" as represented by the red curve (a 5th order fitted trend) and the grey curve for CO2 levels (a 5th order fit). As the red curve indicates, global temperatures started sliding lower during the early 2000's.
The highly variable thin blue line is a plot of global cloud coverage from this source with the following change: the blue curve has been inverted. The result being that when the blue curve goes up, that indicates a smaller cloud coverage; when the blue curve goes down, that means the cloud coverage is increasing.
As this chart clearly depicts, when cloud coverage decreases, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface, the global temperatures climb (note the 1980-1990's period). In addition, the warming stopped and started to slide lower when the cloud coverage increased after the 1990s - apparently, small changes in cloud coverage are quite powerful in terms of subsequent temperature trends.
Obviously, there is a significant relationship between clouds and temperatures. Just as obviously, the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures (and clouds) is from weak to lame, at best - confirming evidence here.
The physics is not difficult to understand by skeptics, nor objective scientists: less clouds allow more sunshine to strike the Earth's surface (1980-1990s); more clouds decrease sunshine at surface (2000s).
Although the cloud coverage data are only available through 2009 for the above chart, a recent 2012 study verifies that cloud coverage is a major determinant of global warming (climate change):
“The global average cloud cover declined about 1.56% over 39 years (1979
to 2009) or ~0.4%/decade, primarily in middle latitudes at middle and
high levels (Eastman & Warren, 2012). Declining clouds
appear to be a major contributor to the observed global warming. A 1
percentage point decrease in albedo (30% to 29%) would increase the
black-body radiative equilibrium temperature about 1°C, about equal to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2. e.g. by a 1.5% reduction in clouds since they form up to 2/3rds of global albedo (IPCC report AR4 1.5.2 p.114). [Ryan Eastman, Stephen G. Warren, A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009: Journal of Climate]
#1: Evidence indicates a strong relationship between clouds and global temperatures.
#2. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.....major, catastrophic global warming from CO2 is highly unlikely
#3. Evidence indicates a weak relationship between CO2 levels and global cloud coverage.
#4. Clouds are so important to global temperatures, crazed alarmist billionaires are investing huge amounts to manufacture anti-warming, floating cloud machines.
#5. The IPCC climate models are programmed to predict the opposite of what objective scientists believe due to the above actual evidence, and what crazy billionaires know (and will invest) due to common sense.
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.
100% of climate scientists now agree that accelerating global warming has robustly stalled- the IPCC's gold-standard UK HadCRUT global temperature dataset confirms what skeptical scientists have long publicly discussed
There no longer is any serious debate of the non-existence of dangerous, accelerating global warming from human CO2 emissions - literally, from all current climate empirical evidence, it does not exist.
In the scientific real world though, there is an abundance of peer reviewed, solid scientific evidence pointing conclusively to a future of both moderate temperature and climate change.
As the above chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 levels have constantly increased since 1990 - see recent CO2 charts here.
In contrast, the IPCC's gold-standard global dataset (above chart) confirms temperatures have stalled since 1998 - actually, they have slightly cooled at a -0.08 degrees/century trend.
The chart's solid blue curve is a simple three year moving average of non-scary global temperature change that current political elites conveniently ignores and the MSM refuses to report.
Current global temperatures are significantly below NASA's climate model and "expert" predictions - note the dotted red line on chart.
All the major climate agency computer models, based on human CO2 emissions, have failed spectacularly.
Modern weather disasters (e.g., blizzards, tropical storms, etc.) portrayed by political elites and MSM "reporters" as caused by "climate change" are the exactly the same bad weather disasters that took place during earlier periods of low atmospheric CO2.
An analysis of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset reveals long-term changes in global warming as less than predicted by the AGW hypothesis - the UK empirical evidence (HatCRUT3) confirms that human CO2 is producing a minimal to trivial effect relative to the UN's IPCC climate change scenarios
The adjacent chart plots 30-year changes in HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset, which is considered the gold-standard by the IPCC and the world's scientists.
The chart's starting point is January 1880, which represents the first data point (pink circle) of a 30-year temperature change, from January 1850 to January 1880. The chart's last plot point (green circle) is the difference from December 1982 to December 2012.
The black curve is the simple 5-year average (60-month moving) of all the 30-year changes. And the light grey curve is the plot of monthly CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels from 1880 through 2012.
Per this gold-standard empirical evidence, one can safely conclude the following:
#1. CO2 levels have consistently increased, with short pauses, over this extended period.
#2. 30-year temperature changes peaked both in 1939 and 1998, and then subsequently declined indicating a more powerful-than-CO2, non-greenhouse gas influence at work.
#3. Higher CO2 levels are not causing runaway, accelerating, rapid, irreversible, dangerous and/or tipping point long-term global temperature changes, which is contrary to all conventional and "consensus" IPCC expert opinions and their climate models.
#4. The simple 5-year moving average curve during the very recent past indicates a declining period for 30-year changes, possibly signalling an extended cooling phase is upon us.
#5. The 30-year temperature changes, prior to the post-1960 consumer/industrial surge in human CO2 emissions, rival those of the modern up/down 30-year changes, in terms of amount, duration and speed.
#6. Long-term (30 year) global temperature change appears to follow an up and down pattern - an oscillation phenomenon, so to speak, that occurs regardless of CO2 levels.
#7. Since this oscillation is not being produced by higher CO2 levels, then some natural phenomenon is likely driving long-term global temperature change, overwhelming the apparent trivial impact of CO2.
There are any number of natural climate phenomena working singularly, or in concert, that are responsible for climate change. An example of one such natural pattern is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) that is adjacent and shown here.
As can be seen, the AMO pattern is curiously similar to the above 30-year global temperature change plot of peaks and valleys.
As NOAA scientists have established, this powerful, climate-changing oscillation has been identified in historical paleoclimate proxies, confirming that human CO2 has nothing to do with it.
And the AMO is just one of many natural climate forces. Another powerful, natural climate-change phenomena that dwarfs the global warming impact of human CO2 is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which is best explained by this expert.
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 UK's HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset has been the IPCC's gold-standard for its political-agenda "science" reports - unfortunately for the IPCC, the HadCRUT dataset also confirms the disappearance of global warming, replaced by a very slight cooling trend
It is estimated some 440 gigtons of human CO2 emissions have been produced over the last 15 years, in contrast to the estimated 330+ tons during the previous 15-year period ending 1997.
Further, it was estimated by the consensus "experts" that a large increase in human emissions over the last 15 years would bring the world hellish warming. It has not happened.
The climate scientists and their associated climate agencies were immensely wrong, as the adjacent chart indicates.
As can be seen, over the first 15-period, prior to 1998, there was a strong warming trend (+1.4 degrees per century). As a result, the experts said human CO2 was the cause. They then emphatically predicted that this warming trend would continue and even accelerate. But it didn't - instead it decelerated.
As the chart depicts, the last 15 years ending 2012 has seen a very slight decline in temperatures, wiping out the strong positive warming trend completely. This small cooling trend in surface temperatures is also supported by the satellite observations of the atmosphere. The global warming was wiped out even though total human CO2 emmisions were a third larger - 110 billion tons more than prior 15-year span.
This empirical evidence has become so convincing that the cooling deniers are even starting to eat that awful tasting, proverbial crow (here and here).
In the meantime, they debate amongst themselves about how befuddled they are concerning the lack of warming, obviously confirming what skeptics knew all the time - their bizarre anti-CO2 phobia and rigid consensus constraints have long blinded them to scientific truth.
NASA's famous in-house climate quack rivals notorious doomsday cultists, such as Harold Camping and others - as the empirical evidence reveals, James Hansen's headline grabbing prediction of boiling oceans, from too much CO2, is from the theater of propaganda absurdity
James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)
Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).
Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?
It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.
The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.
None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).
To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.
Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.
There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.
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.
Scientifically corrupt IPCC scientists, and their disgraceful, pathetic parrots in the MSM, have claimed that global warming has been rapid and accelerating over recent years due to CO2 - in fact, these claims are easily dis-proven by the latest NOAA research
Unsubstantiated claims of rapid global warming have been made by a variety of climate scientists and journalists without any proof.
As in the past, the latest 2012 year-end data from NOAA confirms that the feared CO2-caused accelerated warming is not climate science reality.
The adjacent chart is a plot of annual changes from calendar year to calendar year. Since the 1880s, annual changes have remained in a narrow band with no acceleration trend causing a continuous positive breakout from that historical band.
The 5-year average (blue curve) of annual changes reflects the stability of temperature changes, revealing no major impact from the ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
Long-term climate change is represented by 30-year changes in a climate variable, one being temperature change...whether 30-year temperature change is due to humans (ie, human CO2) can be ascertained readily by examining the changes in the NASA's global temperature dataset
The adjacent chart is not one likely to be publicized by the green-sharia scientists at NASA's GISS; nor will "journalists" at the NY Times and Washington Post report on it. To do so would make them apostates to the anti-CO2 religion jihad.
Regardless, the empirical temperature observations that NASA documents clearly indicates that the monotonous increase in atmospheric CO2 levels have had little impact on long-term (30 years) temperature change.
As the chart depicts, 30-year temperature changes resemble a sine wave (oscillation) that has nothing to do with human CO2 - instead, that sine wave pattern is natural, and easily overwhelms any CO2 impact.
Since the "consensus" global warming has disappeared "unexpectedly," how long before the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other green-sharia outlets start claiming that recent global cooling is the result of human CO2 emissions?
(click on image to enlarge)
As documented by previous temperature charts, the global atmospheric temperatures have been on a declining trend over the last 15 years. The adjacent chart depicts similar results with a change: instead of CO2 levels (ppm), this chart shows the recent human CO2 emissions in gigatons.
Since 1983 (30 years), there have been two distinct phases of global temperatures.
On the right side of this chart, the last 15 years had human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere increasing by over 100 billion tons. However, instead of an acceleration of the predicted atmospheric warming, the prior 15-year trend was reversed - a new global cooling trend was established.
This is clear empirical evidence of the spectacularly wrong prediction by the environmental organizations' green-sharia "experts" and the IPCC's "scientists."
1. Human CO2 emissions are not a global temperature "thermostat"
2. The current AGW hypothesis is severely weak, at best
3. Any regional/local surface warming experienced is obviously not a result of the actual cooling global atmosphere...thus, must be due to other factors (hmmm....fabrication of warming temperatures anyone?)
4. Billions to trillions have been wasted by governments, industries and consumers to avert a predicted, slam-dunk warming from a failed greens' hypothesis
5. If this global atmospheric cooling trend persists much longer, the greens and the MSM "journalists" will pirouette 180 degrees and claim human CO2 causes cooling (and climate change)
The 2012 year-end satellite measurements continue to be cruel to the IPCC's green-sharia scientists - this UN agency has long predicted huge atmospheric global warming from CO2 emissions .....yet in reality, global cooling currently dominates
(click on images to enlarge)
The above chart is the plot (Figure 1) of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA (data sources).
Clearly, as CO2 levels have monotonously increased over the last 17-years (why 17?), global temperatures have not increased with any significance. By year 2100, this "warming" trend would produce a projected increase of one-third of a single degree - rather insignificant and hardly noticeable.
The UN's IPCC's catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which the vast majority of empirical-based scientists now reject, demands that ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to rapidly warm. This accelerated, man-made atmosphere warming would then significantly warm the globe's oceans and land surfaces, quickly making Earth inhospitable from incredibly high temperatures and horrific climate change disasters.
Contrary to the United Nation's "science" though, global temperatures have morphed over the last 30 years from a warming trend to a cooling trend despite the huge increase in CO2 levels.
This next set of temperature plots (Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5) depict the global atmosphere temperatures and CO2 levels over four different time periods. These plots, plus the 17-year chart, formulate an empirical reality that refutes the UN's non-empirical CAGW hypothesis:
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the last 30 years
2. For all time periods, the average atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded the supposedly "safe" 350 parts-per-million (ppm)
3. As figure #2 shows, there is a modest global warming trend evident over 30 years
4. Figure #2 also reveals that most of the global warming took place prior to 1999
5. Since 2003 1993, the 20-year plot (figure #3) has a smaller warming trend - less than 1.0 degree by year 2100
6. The 15-year and 10-year charts (figures #4 and 5) have no warming trend, proving that a very slight atmospheric global cooling has dominated since the late 20th century
7. 2012 global temperatures are well below previous highs over the last 30 years.
8. The 17-year plot (figure #1), which is favored by some CAGW scientists, confirms that global atmospheric warming has been robustly insignificant, contrary to their own predictions
Conclusions: Per the actual satellite empirical evidence, global atmospheric temperatures have been cooling over the last 15 years despite the IPCC "consensus" predictions that global warming would have to be produced if CO2 levels exceeded the 350 ppm level. Global cooling has now dominated for a significantly extended period, which demonstrably proves that CO2 is not a "global thermostat" as claimed by many of the UN's green-sharia scientists. (Note: linear trend representations are not predictions.)
Likewise, claims that global warming is "rapid," "accelerating," "irrefutable," "unprecedented," "incontrovertible," and/or "irreversible" are outright known falsehoods.
Finally, any journalist, scientist, politician or bureaucrat using such terminology to describe global temperatures is an unequivocal liar - that is the simple, empirical truth.
The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent
(click on image to enlarge)
Over the last 180 months (15 years) the atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase at a rapid pace, but the globe (land and ocean) has cooled during that same time.
For the 15-year period ending September 30, 2012, the world experienced a very slight cooling trend of -0.12°C per century.
In contrast, for the 15-year period ending September 1997, the globe was warming at a +1.18°C pace.
We know that the highest priority assigned to NASA by Obama was to build the self-esteem of Muslims, which clearly hasn't worked out to well - but in the case of NOAA, they are obviously working night and day to meet their Obama objective: "warming the world"...
(click on image to enlarge)
As noted in a previous 'C3' post, NOAA conducts a bizarre torturing of historical empirical measurements that defies rational scientific reason. The data torturing of global temperatures takes place multiple times per month, in pursuit of a single-minded objective.
Warming the world.
This chart is a plot two different NOAA global temperature datasets. The green plot represents the monthly global temperatures that NOAA reported at the end of 2008. And the red plot is the same dataset, but only after the tens of thousands of manipulations NOAA has made during the Obama administration. As can be seen, the red linear trend is steeper, meaning that NOAA has fabricated a warming trend that is faster.
NOAA accomplished this by primarily lowering temperatures prior to 1950 (note the red tips at bottom, left of the blue dotted line). After 1950, global temperatures were primarily adjusted up (note the red tips at the top, to the right of the blue dotted curve).
This continuous changing of past empirical evidence is not a case of NOAA and NCDC correcting previous errors or filling-in-the-gaps, instead it is most likely the case of NOAA utilizing their own specially formulated software to "adjust" the global temperature dataset multiple times per month. Obviously, the result of the software is to methodically increase the global warming trend, which then just happens to better match the "predictions" of the infamously unreliable computer climate models that American taxpayers have been forced to spend billions on.
Conclusion: Under Obama, the blatant anti-science technique of changing data to fit the desired political agenda narrative has dominated NOAA's "climate science." They are the only major climate agency in the world that literally changes 100% of the historical empirical evidence every single month. They do so in a non-random manner to attain an objective of increasing "global warming." In simplicity, Obama can look back at the job the NOAA's scientist-bozos have done and announce with pride: "Mission Accomplished!"
Since the Obama "science" team took office, the corruption of science has become an administration mantra - whether it's the green energy science scandals like Solyndra or the bogus climate science of NOAA, it has meant science credibility being dragged through the mud, needlessly - speaking of which....
(click on image to enlarge)
These 2 charts are plots of NOAA's historical global temperature record for the month of October 1899 and May 2011. NOAA has reported 27 different temperatures for each month since January 1, 2012.
Of the 1,529 months included in the entire NOAA temperature dataset, these two months have had the largest change reported during the year 2012.
And it's not just these two months that have experienced retroactive temperature adjustments - every single month in the entire dataset has been adjusted at least 27 times during 2012. Again, that's just for 2012, with the same level of revisionist fabrications occurring in years 2011, 2010 and 2009.
Another bizarre attribute of officially sanctioned revisionism is that most of the months prior to 1950 having cooling "adjustments" similar to the blue curve; and, most of the months post 1950 have warming "adjustments," similar to the red curve. These attributes, when combined, proves that 'Obama-warming' is a phenomenon that NOAA/NCDC scientists alone have discovered (created?).
How unusual are the frequency of these adjustments? For comparison sake, the HadCRUT global temperature dataset has not been revised once in 2012, and its monthly temperatures go back to 1850 (although, HadCRUT will at some point in the near future change to a new Version 4 dataset); for the two major satellite datasets (UAH and RSS), there have been no adjustments made to their entire monthly temperature record in 2012; and finally, the NASA/GISS dataset has had one occurrence in 2012 of an entire dataset revision, plus every month the GISS folks do seem to "adjust" more recent monthly records with some frequency.
So, for the record, NOAA is the only major climate research agency that feels compelled by some agenda, to not only "adjust" temperatures on a monthly basis, but to do so multiple times within each and every month for their entire dataset going back to January 1880. And to corroborate that some sort of agenda is driving all these adjustments, NOAA's end result is always an enhancement of the 'Obama-warming' phenomenon.
Speaking of January 1880, NOAA has also reported 27 different temperatures for that month in 2012. This single example of the bizarre fabrication of global temperatures simply makes a mockery of climate science and the historical evidence, which is cause enough for any sane person to conclude that the "global warming" that NOAA scientists speak of is essentially a bunch of bullshit.
One last thought. There are those who attempt to justify the ludicrous level of adjustments to the historical measurements as a "quality control" process being rigorously conducted by NOAA researchers. Rest assured though, the above two charts (red and blue) are actual proof that NOAA "scientists" must exist in some bizarro 'QC' world that is at the level of Six Sigma weirdness (in a bad way).
In conclusion, the blatant and politically-driven temperature adjustments being performed by NOAA/NCDC on a monthly basis provides even further ammunition as to why the world needs to move to a better and more accurate methodology towards temperature measurement and reporting. Ironically, it is NOAA itself that has already conducted a large experiment, and in doing so, proving their monthly bizarre battle with the empirical evidence is truly unnecessary and superfluous.
Note: 'C3' has downloaded 27 different NOAA global temperature datasets from the NOAA web server during 2012. There actually could have been more than 27 since 'C3' may have missed several revisions over the course of 2012.
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.
Most global warming skeptics believe that humans have some measurable impact on global temperatures and the climate, but that natural climate forces, over longer periods, will overwhelm the human influence...in addition, skeptics believe that the human influence will not result in the hysterical catastrophic climate disasters presented by doomsday pundits...
(click image to enlarge, image source of one, two, three)
...and finally, global warming skeptics believe, for a multitude of reasons, human errors/mistakes/failings have caused late 20th century global warming to be significantly overstated.
This article addresses this last point. What if the climate experts conducted an actual experiment that would prove whether the global warming skeptics were right or wrong about world-wide warming being overstated?
Well, NOAA has actually conducted said experiment by building their U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), which precisely, and automatically, measures temperature and weather conditions across the U.S. The USCRN effort is based on the concept that the best way to measure the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures is to place state-of-the-art climate stations in pristine rural areas that are little impacted by people, buildings, vehicles, equipment, asphalt and etc.
An example of one of NOAA's pristine climate measurement stations is the top image (Image #1). And the middle image depicts the location of each pristine station - there are currently 114 of them, and clearly they are well dispersed providing good U.S. coverage.
By carefully planning and maintaining these pristine stations and by using the best technology available, this large-scale experiment eliminates the following problems with the older weather measurement network:
There are no observer or transcription errors to correct.
There is no time of observation bias, nor need for correction of it.
There is no broad scale missing data, requiring filling in data from potentially bad surrounding stations. (FILNET)
There are no needs for bias adjustments for equipment types since all equipment is identical.
There are no need for urbanization adjustments, since all stations are rural and well sited.
There are no regular sensor errors due to air aspiration and triple redundant lab grade sensors. Any errors detected in one sensor are identified and managed by two others, ensuring quality data.
Due to the near perfect geospatial distribution of stations in the USA, there isn’t a need for gridding to get a national average temperature.
So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story - when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature "warming" in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months.
To clarify, this range of overstatement depends on the given new and old stations being compared. However, when the new network versus old network results are examined in total, for the recent summer heat wave in the U.S., the old stations were reporting bogus warming during July that amounted to some +2.1°F higher than the actual temperatures.
What does this mean? Within the climate science realm, the old climate/weather station system had long been considered the best and most complete measurement network in the world. But when pitted against a brand new climate measurement system that has the best qualities that science can provide, we find that the traditional U.S. methodology is significantly overstating the "global warming" phenomenon. This means that if other countries replaced their own low quality network with NOAA's greatest and latest technology, with the best location site standards applied, we would discover that world-wide temperature increases have been wildly overstated also.
Conclusions: A large-scale NOAA experiment has proven that global warming skeptics were correct: temperature warming in the U.S. has been significantly overstated in recent decades. This NOAA experiment should be expanded to other continents and countries since it is now obvious that the combined older technology and substandard weather station sites have well overstated the global warming phenomenon. Before any further dollars are spent on climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, the world needs to upgrade their global weather/climate reporting network to the USCRN standard so that policymakers have correct temperature change mesurements to base their decisions on.
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.
A high climate sensitivity to growing human CO2 emissions is absolutely essential to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW or AGW) hypothesis - the climate empirical evidence refutes the high sensitivity claim though
(click image to enlarge)
In climate science reality, the actual global temperature observations over the last 15 years do not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis.
Central to the CAGW hypothesis is that increasing human CO2 emissions will raise atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. Subsequent to the atmospheric CO2 increase, global warming will automatically and consistently increase.
Once the globe starts warming, the AGW hypothesis states that a high climate sensitivity to CO2 will initiate a dangerous positive feedback loop: the rising temperatures will increase water evaporation; the powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas water vapor will then increase; then global temperatures will increase even more, the melting of ice sheets occurs; thus, less solar energy will be reflected into space; and global temperatures will then increase even more; and etc., etc.
This powerful and relentless positive feedback loop will produce unequivocal, robust, significant, unprecedented, irrefutable, rapid and accelerating global warming. At least that is what every "expert" climate model based on the CAGW hypothesis predicted.
But did the above prediction/scenario/forecast happen? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opposite happened.
The adjacent chart depicts the last 30 years of increasing CO2 levels and global temperature trends. This actual climate evidence is sliced into two time periods: the 15 years ending July 1997 and the 15 years ending July 2012. The real world evidence reveals the following:
1. The far right column (grey) shows that CO2 levels were increasing at a 147 ppm per century rate by the end of July 1997. Actual CO2 levels were at the 364 ppm mark.
2. For the 15 years ending 1997, global temperatures were increasing at +1.08°C per century trend (red column).
3. Since July 1997, the growth of CO2 levels has increased to a 197 ppm per century trend, and now stands at the 395 ppm mark.
4. After 30 years of increasing human CO2 emissions and faster growing atmospheric CO2 levels, the last 15 years have witnessed the previous global warming morph into a global cooling tend (blue column) at a -0.24°C per century trend.
Conclusions: The climate scientist and climate models that have long predicted catastrophic global warming from CO2 emissions are proven to be undeniably incorrect. The AGW hypothesis does not reflect climate reality. The actual empirical evidence proves the CAGW hypothesis to be irretrievably wrong. The climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is, at best, tiny. The natural forces of the climate will produce negative feedbacks that completely overwhelm the hypothetical CAGW positive feedback loop. Thus, while CO2 emissions will likely induce a slight warming, the natural climatic forces will dictate and dominate our climate future.
Finally, any "science" association, journalist, politician, celebrity, weatherperson, bureaucrat and pundit who says that dangerous global warming is happening, is unequivocal, is rapid, is irrefutable, is unprecedented, is robust, is significant and is accelerating can only be one thing: he or she is a pathological liar.
HadCRUT is the IPCC's gold-standard for measuring global temperatures - over last 15 years (180 months) the globe has cooled with a -0.24C per century trend, not warmed as predicted
(click image to enlarge)
HadCRUT released their latest global temperature dataset today, which confirmed what both NOAA and NASA reported earlier this month - that global temps declined during July 2012.
In addition, the plot of the HadCRUT and CO2 data for the last 15 years, through July 2012, is very revealing.
Contrary to what the mainstream press reports and exaggerates about
"global warming," the world has actually been in a stable-to-cooling
phase since the El Nino temperature spike of 1997/98.
Of course, if the NYTimes or WAPO or CNN or CBS or the AP were ever to report the actual cooling trend over the last 15 years (despite the massive amounts of human CO2 emissions) this would establish that they have been grossly misleading the public for years about consensus "global warming."
And as the press fully realize, the public that primarily relies on traditional media outlets are extremely gullible with little intellectual curiosity. Thus the media gets away with hysterical fear-mongering, half-truths and deceptions.
Conclusion: Long story short - human CO2 emissions are not causing rapid, accelerating global warming, per the IPCC's favored HadCRUT temperature dataset. Over the last 15 years, global temperatures have been relatively stable, with a slight global cooling trend being exhibited. All the IPCC's and NOAA's climate experts, their climate models and the professional doomsayers have been absolutely wrong about their catastrophic climate predictions, for over a decade now - and not a single mainstream press outlet reports this. Solid advice to gullible: don't believe anything the mainstream press outlets "report."
The UK's HadCRUT global temperature dataset indicates a global cooling trend of -0.2°C/century over last 15 years, plus May 2012 was slightly cooler - the global warming science facts, per the IPCC's own gold-standard
(click on image to enlarge)
While much of the U.S. has been doing a slow roast over the last few months, other parts of the world are cooling. So much so that in the aggregate the global mean temperature slightly fell during May 2012.
As the adjacent chart indicates, over the last 180 months (15 years) global temperatures have been on a cooling trend. This trend persists despite the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and at least two powerful El Niño's since 1997.
There is not a single global climate model that predicted this stable/cooling trend. All models predicted "accelerating" global warming because of their singular dependance on levels of atmospheric CO2.
As can be observed and surmised, clearly there are other forces are driving the IPCC-HadCRUT global temperatures other than CO2. The global warming science facts do not support the speculations of climate doomsday alarmists.
Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times - NOAA has been a leader in fabricating temperatures (faux warming), which many view as faux (fake) climate science
(click on image to enlarge)
'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's).
The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006).
The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below:
1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months
a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered
b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees
2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959.
a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale
3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months
a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised
b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees
4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959
a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale
7. One example of wacky (nonsensical) adjacent temperature adjustments
a. December 1881 = +0.10C deg (adjusted up since 2008)
b. January 1882 = -0.02C deg (adjusted down since 2008)
Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis.
Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some non-scientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions.
No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures.
Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple.
Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures - it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.
The latest NOAA/NCDC temperature dataset indicates that a long-term cooling trend for the continental U.S. persists. The last 15 years are shown in the chart below (180 months ending 5/31/2012)
While the recent U.S. higher temperatures during early 2012 (as seen in the above chart) has been very enjoyable, how does it compare with past U.S. temperature changes over the long-term? And, is the 2012 U.S. warming a result of human CO2 emissions as some chicken-little pundits have claimed?
The chart below adds some context to help sort out how the recent warming compares to past U.S. temperature change.
See that red dot way over on the right side? That's May 2012. More specifically, that's the May 2012 increase in the U.S. temperatures over May 1997 - a 15-year period. The jagged red curve prior to the May 2012 red dot represents all the 15-year changes in temperature, calendar month to calendar month.
Plus the chart's blue curve is the 5-year average of those 180-month (15 years) temperature changes. Did you note that the current 5-year mean of long-term U.S. temperature change since 1910 is not exactly "unprecedented"? Did you note the average is not exactly "accelerating"? And btw, did you note that the blue curve was higher in the 1930's than during the last two decades?
And, what about those black dots? Oh, that's right, they represent the actual atmospheric CO2 levels, which are supposedly causing unprecedented, unequivocal, accelerating, rapid and very dangerous long-term warming increases.
Hey, don't be a slacker now - look closely at the evidence in the bottom chart. Can you see how CO2 is causing rapid and unequivocal long-term global warming increases since 1910? Don't worry, we can't see it either. (The light grey curve is the 5-year average of CO2 level increases.)
We pose the above rhetorical questions for a reason. It's always important to consider the actual temperature empirical evidence. Then compare it to what is reported. Then put it into context, from both a long-term temperature change and CO2 perspective.
Although the U.S. (and the rest of the globe) has warmed from the bottom of the Little Ice Age, the long-term warming is not accelerating dangerously from increased greenhouse gases, be it CO2 or other. That is the objective determination from the data.
The final conclusion? Essentially, the actual temperature change evidence is contrary to the scary global/U.S. "warming" stories and climate change fear-mongering that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angles Times, CNN, NBC and other mainstream press outlets religiously (fanatically?), without due diligence, deliver.