Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'
Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.
One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.
For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."
"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."
The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....
"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."
Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."
IPCC climate scientist Ben Santer claims that 17 years is the proper benchmark to determine CO2's impact on global temperatures - indeed, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995
With climate scientist Peter Gleick's fraud reaching a crest in the headlines, it's time to revisit the climate "science" of the original Fakegate perp.
Ben Santer recently published research claiming that a 17-year span is the correct period to measure for CO2's influence on global temperatures. The adjacent chart plots the last 17 years through January 2012.
Since January 1995, the HadCRUT global temperature anomaly (the IPCC's gold standard) has declined from January 1995's +0.36° to January 2012's +0.22°. Simply put, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. And the linear trend over the past 17 years is a minor +0.6°C impact by 2100AD, if that trend were to continue.
But as the light blue polynomial curve indicates, global warming of the past (1980s and 1990s) has definitely gone AWOL, and appears to be moving in the direction of global cooling.
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions have had little impact on global temperatures over the near past, which is why there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
AGW alarmist climate scientists predicted that increasing human CO2 emissions would cause an increase in water vapor with the result being a global warming tipping point - empirical evidence completely discredits that prediction
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. Very simply, for the IPCC's climate models predicted runway global warming to happen, there has to be a positive feedback from atmospheric CO2 that pushes the climate to a "tipping point." The positive feedback in the IPCC's computer models is an ever increasing atmospheric water vapor level (greenhouse gas) due to rising temperatures from CO2.
In the real world though, that positive feedback has not happened, as the adjacent chart of relative humidity (atmospheric water vapor) and global temperatures shows. And now, a new peer reviewed study in the prestigious Journal of Climate is confirming that the global warming tipping point hypothesis is without any empirical merit.
"A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusion: The IPCC alarmist global warming tipping point does not exist over the long term - instead, over periods less than a decade, the climate will likely return to an equilibrium position due to built-in negative feedbacks.
Global warming theorists now claim that Arctic sea ice melt causes colder and snowier winters - the empirical evidence indicates that it must also cause colder oceans, a definite AGW negative feedback
(click on images to enlarge)
These Bob Tisdale charts of ocean temperatures through January 2012 are most enlightening. To summarize the data plotted on the charts, ocean temperatures, as represented by the Southern, South Pacific and global measurements, clearly show a decline since the 1998 El Niño event. The Southern Ocean (aka the Antarctica Ocean) has experienced a very significant decline in temperature since the early 2000's.
Sooo...per the logic of the typical global warming alarmist, the Arctic sea ice melt from human CO2 emissions does the following, from one Polar region to its geographic opposite:
In essence, the tortured logic of the ever-changing alarmist climate change theories literally leads one to conclude that global cooling weather events are the natural negative feedback to AGW.
Of course, no IPCC climate change report (so far) has remotely stated the above. But the actual climate empirical evidence (ie, non-warming world, lower ocean temps) and cold weather events has now forced CO2-centric global warming alarmists into a pretzeled logic that ultimately supports the overall negative feedbacks of global climate as understood by CAGW-skeptics, not the positive feedbacks pushed by the IPCC.
Despite a warm 2012 January in the U.S., overall January temperatures over the last 15 years have fallen off a cliff - falling at a minus seventeen degrees per century rate
For many in the U.S., this past January was a pleasant weather experience as the recent years' frigid winter temperatures took residence in other parts of the world. Here's a typical winter weather story that other geographical regions have experienced:
"Germany’s no. 1 daily Bild reports on the Killer Cold now paralyzing Europe and Asia, and calls it the worst in 25 years. The cold has hit Eastern Europe especially hard, with temperatures plummeting to -30°C throughout the Ukraine and Poland. So far the cold has claimed 139 lives, with 3 in Germany...In Serbia, over 6 feet of snow have fallen over the last few weeks. In Turkey heavy snows have have blanketed much of the country...new cold record had been set in Finland: minus 39°C was recorded in Northern Finland....In the Urals and Siberia, the temperature fell to -40C while in the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, a forecaster told Interfax-Kazakhstan news agency the wind-chill factor meant the real temperature was down to -52C..."
Fortunately, the continental U.S. was spared that awful winter weather this January. But as the above chart shows, our warm January did not do too much to change the long-term cooling that the month of January has brought us - that 'January month' cooling trend (blue arrow) is still in a spectacular double-digit per century rate decline.
When all months are included (not just January), the U.S. has experienced a cooling trend contrary to all "consensus" CO2-based climate predictions; this second chart shows the moving 12-month period over the last 15 years (180 months) through January 2012.
The 15-year period ending in January was the 5th warmest in the past 15 years; for all January months on record, it was the 4th warmest since 1895.
Note: Linear trends are not predictions. Charts from NOAA / NCDC site. (click on charts to enlarge)
The global warming and climate change debate waging in the pages of the WSJ and blogs exposes public to embarrassing "consensus" climate science failures
(click on images to enlarge)
This past week has seen a war of words breakout in the WSJ pages (here and here) between non-alarmists and alarmists. Although nearly 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age and that humans do have an influence on climate, the public (via the WSJ) has now been witness to the unbelievably lame argument made by global warming alarmist scientists.
As "97%" of the world populace knows, the IPCC has falsely prophesied for the last two decades that human CO2 emissions are causing "runaway" warming that is resulting in a climate "tipping point." As the above two charts clearly indicate, the IPCC climate model prediction of runaway warming has been immensely wrong.
The leftmost chart tracks HadCRUT annual global temperatures (light purple) versus the IPCC's climate model predictions. The blue, red and green curves are temperature projections if CO2 emissions continued "as is" and the orange curve is if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. (Light purple dotted line is anticipated anomaly by 2025 per the HadCRUT linear trend.)
Obviously, the observed global temperatures are robustly below all the climate model scenarios anticipated, even with actual CO2 emissions continuing their "business-as-usual" growth.
The second chart (rightmost) plots absolute annual global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 30 years, since January 1, 1982. The IPCC models and alarmists envision that global temperatures could exceed 20°C by year 2100 due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels - this chart puts the last 30 years in that alarmist context.
Per the linear trend of the last 30 years (1.58°C/century), global temperatures are on a path to reach 15.75°C by 2100, a maximum that is a fraction of the IPCC's much publicized catastrophic predictions. The blue curve is the 5-year average of annual temperature change - this is the actual outcome versus the scary "runaway," "tipping point" global warming that all alarmist scientists believed was occurring during the recent "warmest" decades.
Speaking of "warmest," this is now the go-to-scary-word of alarmist "consensus" scientists. Literally, they have been forced to use this lame adjective because of the embarrassing empirical evidence. In essence, "warmest" (take your pick - day, month, quarter, year and decade) replaces words such as "accelerating," "rapid" and "runaway" warming, which are demonstrably false.
Indeed, the lameness of the underlying AGW "science" has become palpable.
The catastrophic (CAGW) theory is empirically a very lame theory
Global warming is not rapid, accelerating or runaway
Since 1850 the per century linear trend is +0.43°C (+0.34°C by 2100AD)
Last 30 years, the per century linear trend is +1.58°C (+1.40°C by 2100AD)
Last 15 years, the per century linear trend is +0.34°C (+0.29°C by 2100AD)
Last 10 years, the per century linear trend is -0.72°C (-0.63°C by year 2100AD)
The IPCC and the typical CAGW alarmist claims all sorts of magical powers for CO2-induced global warming - per the data NASA / GISS data though, none are true
The above blinking chart (created here) shows four different short-term linear trends (five years ending 1998, 2003, 2007 & 2011) for NASA/GISS surface temperatures. The latest 5-year trend ending 2011 is +0.36°C per century rate.
The long-term trend (+0.60°C per century rate) since 1880 is higher than 5-yr period ending 2011.
The current 5-year trend is below the long-term trend
There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been moderately negative (cooling rate)
There have been recent prior periods when the short-term trend has been highly positive (warming rate)
Atmospheric CO2 levels keep increasing across every short-term period at approximately the same per century rate
Atmospheric CO2 does not cause global temperatures to be: unequivocal, irreversible, accelerating or significantly warming on a permanent basis
Recent global warming could convert to global cooling very quickly (in a span of a few years) regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels
Robust global warming (cooling) is not "incontrovertible"
Previous Lubchenco's NOAA "Science" Posts here, here and here.
Last time we checked, 'Lubchenco Science' had accomplished 3 full revisions of the entire historical temperature dataset during January, adding to the 6 known full revisions done in December.
Surprise!....Lubchenco has managed to squeeze another full revision of the entire temperature dataset in the last few days - making it at least 4 for January.
NOAA is now up to 10 full revisions since October - they refer to their constant revising of the historical data going back to 1880 as "quality control." In contrast, NASA/GISS, HadCRUT, UAH and RSS have not revised their entire datasets once during the last two months.
James Hansen has provided proof over the last few decades that climate models are worthless as climate prediction tools - will NASA & the IPCC admit failure?
(click on images to enlarge)
Using the December-end temperature anomalies (chart on left), it is readily apparent that NASA's James Hansen is entirely incapable of producing accurate global temperature predictions over the long-term. His predictions have been so bad that even the mainstream press is finally coming around to the realization that the alarmist global warming scenarios are truly without merit.
The second chart (on the right) exhibits the non-predicted deceleration of global temperatures over the last 15 years using the IPCC's gold-standard HadCRUT dataset.
Whether it is long or short-term, Hansen/NASA models are no better than a Ouija board as a tool to predict global temperatures. This massive failure by Hansen et al can also be seen in his model's prediction of ocean heat content and sea level rise.
The IPCC's "Climate Bible" relies on the HadCRUT (HC) global temperature dataset for its analysis - the last 100 years of HC data reveals the weak CO2 and global warming relationship
A previous 'C3' post regarding CO2 and NOAA / NCDC global temperatures generated a lot of interest, especially the second chart titled: "The Case Against CO2." That chart revealed that CO2's impact on global temperatures was essentially very weak over the last 50 years, ending 2011, versus the prior 50 years ending 1961.
We received questions as to how the famous HadCRUT (the IPCC's favorite global temperature dataset) compared to the previously used NOAA/NCDC dataset. The adjacent chart shows the result of switching to the all important HC data.
As one can discern from this chart, the result is essentially the same for the two datasets (see previous NOAA/NCDC chart).
The 50-year period ending 1961 had little CO2 growth, yet global temperatures increased significantly more than the "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming of the 50-year period ending 2011.
The growth of CO2 levels has an inconsistent effect on global temperatures suggesting the CO2 and temperature relationship is not robust - it is actually frail
Global temperatures are not "accelerating" because of CO2 during the last 50 years
Modern global warming over last 50 years was not "unprecedented" versus earlier periods
Other climate dynamics and inputs primarily drive temperature and climate change - the trace gas CO2 has only a trace impact in comparison
Many global warming alarmist scientists make the claim that CO2 is the world's thermostat - NOAA climate evidence totally debunks that bogus claim
The urban myth of the all powerful climate trace gas CO2 has led both alarmist climate scientists and EPA bureaucrats with political agendas to actually claim that CO2 is like a furnace's thermostat. Just dial the increase/decrease of CO2 change desired, and like a furnace, the earth's temperature will respond up/down accordingly.
That claim is robust, bogus political propaganda with zero scientific merit, as NOAA's empirical science collection efforts have well established. (click chart to enlarge)
This chart plots actual annual changes in atmospheric levels (from 1880 through 2011) versus actual annual changes in NOAA/NCDC global temperatures for the same time period. As can be seen, the annual change in CO2 (the black columns) have little if any impact of annual temp change (the red-orange curve). The R^2 measurement of the CO2 and temperature relationship is a meager +0.016 - that would be a R^2 of teeny-weeny proportions (essentially there is no cause and effect relationship).
The longer term view supports that finding also. The green curve on the chart is the 20-year average of CO2 level changes; the blue curve is the 20-year average of global temperature changes. Clearly, changes in CO2 are not driving changes in temperatures - CO2 is not a "thermostat".
Global annual temperature changes are not a result of changes in CO2 levels
CO2 is not some magical global thermostat
Other climate dynamics drive major temperature change and climate change
The above conclusions do not preclude CO2 having a consistently minor, beneficial warming influence on global temperatures
The NASA climate model developed by James Hansen has been atrocious at predicting global warming over the last 15 years and the evidence mounts it is even worse at predicting ocean heat content
Read here. The oceans represent some 70% of the globe's surface and is a giant reservoir of energy, with an immense effect on the climate. Being able to accurately predict the heat content is absolutely essential if climate models are ever to be trusted.
As the adjacent chart by expert Bob Tisdale reveals, the NASA climate model prediction for ocean heat content (OHC) is robustly higher than actual measurements of OHC since 2003. The model doesn't work as advertised, like most climate models' predictions.
"The reality is, the flattening of the Global OHC anomaly data was not anticipated by those who created the models. This of course raises many questions, one of which is, if the models did not predict the flattening of the OHC data in recent years, much of which is based on the drop in North Atlantic OHC, did the models hindcast the rise properly from 1955 to 2003? Apparently not."
The NASA model was developed by Hansen. He had it programmed to predict a rapid increase in OHC based on the questionable CO2-based AGW hypothesis. Because of a major weakness in the AGW hypothesis (the never realized positive feedback loops) NASA's model is unable to predict OHC correctly, let alone the world's climate.
Latest data from NASA / GISS confirms the robust deceleration of global warming, revealing the non-significant impact on global temperatures by CO2
(click on images to enlarge)
The AGW alarmist claim of "accelerating" global warming requires, at minimum, an increasing rate of temperature change as denoted by an increasing slope of a linear trend line. The two above charts plot the rolling 10-year trend (slope) of the annual GISS temperature data - the left axis of both charts represents slope in terms of temperature change per hundred years (century).
The leftmost chart reveals a large variation in speed and level of temperature change since the 1800s. The right chart takes the same data but only plots the last 15 years of GISS "acceleration" and "deceleration."
From the 2001 peak of a +3.48°C/century temperature rate, it has now fallen at the end of 2011 to an almost flat rate of +0.04°C/century temperature increase. Per the actual evidence, the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 (grey arrow and grey area of charts) has zero influence on whether global temperatures are accelerating or decelerating.
These two charts do not represent predictions of future temperatures, but both clearly indicate that the IPCC and major climate research agencies have been substantially wrong in predicting "accelerating" warming.
Likewise, they have been substantially wrong in their assumption that the climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 is positive, growing and nearing a runaway tipping point. The empirical evidence proves all of these assertions to be essentially false.
Global temperatures are decelerating, not accelerating
Rising CO2 levels do not cause global temperatures to continuously increase
Climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is not robust
IPCC predictions of "runaway" temps and climate "tipping points" are without empirical merit
Science elites and their mainstream press comrades have been pushing the fantasy of rapid, accelerating global warming - NOAA proves they were lying
The claim that human CO2 causes rapid, accelerating global warming is empirically a very bogus statement.
As evident by the adjacent NOAA / NCDC data, the "accelerating" warming claim is without merit - it is a literally a myth that MSM reporters and establishment science elites use to serve their political agenda purposes.
As the orange circles indicate, annual temperature change constantly fluctuates between positive and negative values, and the blue 10-year average reveals zero "accelerated" warming. The growth of CO2 levels (grey columns and curve) reveals little influence on temperature change.
To put this in real world context, think about it this way:
1. If a portfolio manager said the orange circles represent accelerating investment returns, year after year, that person would likely be incarcerated or institutionalized for blatant fraud.
2. If the Google CEO told his board of the directors that the orange circles represent accelerating growth of Google profits, year after year, the board (even board member Al Gore) would have no choice but to fire the CEO for either gross stupidity or robust lying.
Is it any wonder that the American public trust in the mainstream press and the climate science establishment continues to plunge?
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center just released today their global temperature dataset for the year ending 2011 (and yes, they conducted another bizarre revision of the entire historical dataset - more on that in a later posting). (click on images to enlarge)
The chart on the left plots the NCDC global temperatures for the last 15 years ending 2011, plus the atmospheric CO2 levels. As the empirical evidence undeniably shows, there is no correlation between global temps and CO2, and the blue curve actually suggests a movement towards a cooling era.
The linear trend for the NCDC temperatures represents an increase by year 2100 of only +0.40°C degree - definitely not "accelerating" warming using anyone's definition. (see new post on "accelerating" here)
The measly "global warming" of the last 15 years is one story and another interesting story about global warming is found in looking at the last 100 years. When the 100 year span is broken into 50-year segments, one ending 2011 and the other ending 1961, the myth of dangerous global warming from human CO2 emissions really starts to unravel. (see update with HadCRUT temperature data)
The first red bar on second chart (chart on right) represents the increase of the 2011 mean temperature over that of 1961; the second red bar represents the increase of the 1961 mean temperature over that of 1911. Clearly, the increase of the mean temperature during the first 50-year period surpasses that of the last 50-year period ending 2011.
And the greater increase in mean temperature during the first 50 year period took place with a smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as depicted by the grey bars. In fact, the CO2 level increase over the last 50 years was greater than 4 times the earlier 50-year period.
The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.
Summary: Both global warming and cooling have happened in the recent past, and both will occur again over the next 100 years, regardless of CO2 emissions.
Latest EU satellite measurements puts sea rise at meager 2.7 inch rate by 2100 and NOAA can't find global warming in the oceans
Empirical evidence is a real bitch for 'big green' and the IPCC Climategate scientists, and, of course, James Hansen.
Per the trends, sea levels will be 2.7 inches higher in 2100 with ocean temperatures being lower by -0.5°C. (Note: trends are not predictions)
Since late 2003 the EU has had its own satellite to measure sea levels. With that new technology, they have determined that the sea's are barely rising (see blue curve in chart), in contrast to the prediction of "accelerating" sea level increases by the IPCC's minions, and the prediction of "boiling" ocean temperatures by others.
Boiling oceans!!!? Yup...James Hansen, a climate "expert," has recently been caught on video actually claiming that if ocean temperatures continue their trend they will begin to boil - see video here. This is the Madoff-style climate science that the elites eagerly swallow hook, line and sinker.
IPCC "experts" and climate models predicted that CO2 increases would cause runaway growth in atmospheric water vapor & temperatures - wrong on both counts
As the adjacent chart shows, atmospheric CO2 levels have been methodically rising. Per the IPCC's climate models and its Climategate experts, the rising CO2 should cause a water vapor "tipping point" that would cause "runaway" warming. It hasn't, on both counts.
The bold blue curve reveals atmospheric relative humidity actually decreasing (less water vapor) over the last 17 years since the end of 1994. The bold red curve represents the slowing growth of atmospheric warming, as measured by NASA's own satellite.
In essence, the fabled positive feedback the climate models use does not exist, and climate sensitivity to CO2 levels is robustly lower than assumed.
If the 17-year satellite linear trend were to continue unchanged, the global temperature increase by year 2100 would be only +1.13 degrees, well below the IPCC's minimum prediction. The last 10-year linear trend (not shown in chart) indicates an increase of a measly +0.3 degrees for global temps by 2100, which would be barely perceptible.
Simply stated, the IPCC can't predict squat, especially anything to do with climate changes due to human CO2. Establishment science and coastal elites are literally besides themselves as the empirical evidence continues to affirm that the "consensus" IPCC catastrophic AGW hypothesis is at best, lame, and more likely just plain invalid.
In addition, a new peer reviewed study found that over the last 30 years the Antarctica snowmelt has been trending down, which substantiates the observed cooler temperatures as the above plots show.
"Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades.....The paper actually shows a declining trend in snowmelt over the past 31 years, although not statistically significant. Of note, the abstract states, "other than atmospheric processes likely determine long-term ice shelf stability." Translation: increased CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' do not threaten stability of the Antarctic ice shelf." [P. Kuipers Munneke, G. Picard, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, E. van Meijgaard 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
An example of blatant data manipulation and temperature fabrication by climate scientists - "we need to make Iceland warmer"
Read here. Steve Goddard finds another classic example of temperature fabrication involving Iceland records. Misleading the public and policymakers has become a corrupt science art-form, unchallenged by the political ruling elites and their puppet, the mainstream press.
As this style of climate-liar "science" is applied to all past temperature records, large "man-made" global warming is a no-brainer.
Despite massive amounts of CO2 emissions over the last 60 years, the long-term trend remains well below a one degree (+0.26°C) increase per century rate.
As the inset chart reveals, the more recent 10-year trend has the representative UK region cooling at an amazing -8.7°C per century rate (a -7.7°C decrease by year 2100).
The following chart is a plot of one-year temperature changes (moving 12-month), with the historical CO2 levels depicted. Clearly, one-year temperature changes are not getting larger, and ever larger, as an "accelerated" warming climate would require.
The red curve is a twenty-year average of the temperature changes, which indicates no long-term influence on CET temperature change by CO2 levels, natural or human.
Conclusion: UK citizens need not worry about "rapid," "accelerating" and "irreversible" warming. There is no credible empirical evidence supporting such CO2-AGW alarmism.
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Data Sources: CET & CO2. Charts created with Excel. Note: Linear trends are not predictions.
The NOAA / NCDC climate research group published year-end U.S. temperature data confirming that U.S. is still cooling - CO2 has zero global warming impact on U.S.
As the Climategate 2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the chart below depicts. (click on to enlarge)
This "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting January 1, 1997 and ending December 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending December was the 5th coldest December-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, December 2011 was the 22nd warmest since 1895 (December 1998 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.4°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending December 2011 (Januart 1, 2002 thru December, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 7.2°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
Satellite measurements confirm that global warming has stopped over the last 15 years despite large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels
The chart on the left has to be extremely painful and embarrassing for the IPCC's Climategate alarmists and their 'big green' and MSM comrades.
Despite the large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels, the global temperatures have barely increased - contrary to predictions from the IPCC, NOAA and NASA's GISS. Per the linear trend of the adjacent chart, the projected temperature increase by year 2100 will only be a ludicrously tiny +0.05 degree (yes, only 1/20th of a single degree).
The grey curve/background indicates the monotonous growth of CO2 levels, while the blue curve reveals temperatures trending slightly cooler over the last 15 years. One could easily surmise from this chart that increased CO2 levels (due to human CO2 emissions) have actually "cooled" the planet since the earth-fever of the 1997-98 El Niño event.
Obviously, the satellite provides further empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are very unlikely to be a major force driving global temperatures and/or climate change. The lack of observable correlation between monthly temperatures and monthly CO2 levels is stunning.
And here's a 'C3' prediction to take to the bank: the mainstream press will not provide its readers and viewers with this actual satellite data that literally contradicts their past hysterical "global-warming reporting."
Additional modern and historical temperature charts. Source of temperature and CO2 data for above Excel chart. [Note: linear trends are not predictions]
New peer reviewed study by James Hansen of NASA / GISS measures recent ocean heat content and his data indicates insignificant warming - thus, oceans by year 2100 will not warm much
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does the number crunching on the Hansen et al 2011 analysis that earth has a serious energy imbalance, and this "imbalance" is represented by an ocean warming equivalent of 0.54 W/m2 of energy over the period of 2005 - 2010.
Now, +0.54 W/m2 sounds like a very serious energy imbalance indeed until one translates what that means in degrees Celsius of ocean warming, then projecting that "warming" out to year 2100. That is exactly what Willis's number crunching did and he discovered that based on Hansen's "serious" energy imbalance that oceans will warm by a laughable and by a barely measurable amount of:
+0.15C degree by 2100 AD
Above is the formula that Willis used to convert the "serious" imbalance into actual degrees warming
Adjacent, is an Excel representation of calculations done by Willis. (click to enlarge)
You can download this 'C3' Excel file to examine/play with the calcs. (If you find an error in our representation of Willis's work, please email us.)
Since 1998 the IPCC's HadCRUT reports global cooling - neither Nasa's GISS nor HadCRUT report "dangerous," nor "accelerating," nor "runaway," nor "tipping point" nor "irreversible" global warming
Unfortunately, almost every family has to suffer with the typical "useful idiot" family member during the holidays who has relied on MSNBC, ABC (Australia), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the BBC or CNN for their climate information. Soooo...below is a Christmas stocking stuffer to be pulled out at the appropriate time when the family idiot starts spewing the mainstream media left / liberal / progressive / Democrat climate anti-science.
The IPCC's climate reports' gold-standard for global averages is the HadCRUT temperature dataset. Since the end of 1997, the HadCRUT global average shows an actual global cooling trend, not warming (-0.03C degrees/century). And since the end of 2000, this IPCC gold-standard has global cooling trend increasing to a -0.6C degree/century. (click on charts to enlarge)
The blue trend line is the IPCC's best-of-breed temperature dataset. Nasa's GISS dataset is represented by the red trend and NOAA's NCDC dataset by the green trend.
From the above, we can surmise the following:
1. Despite record setting human CO2 emissions over the past decade, they have not caused "dangerous," "accelerating," "runaway," "tipping point" or "irreversible" global warming
2. Per the IPCC gold-standard, a slight global cooling trend has developed since the end of 1997, and is more prominent since the end of 2000
3. Despite two large El Nino (extreme warming) events since 1997, the global temperatures per the IPCC gold-standard have trended down (through November 2011)
4. None of the IPCC's climate models predicted deceleration of global warming, let alone the actual global cooling
5. Whether it's the HadCRUT or GISS or NCDC temperature trends shown above, "accelerating" global warming is not reality - the opposite is reality
6. A worst case warming scenario based on recent trends (GISS or NCDC, not HadCRUT) might range from a +0.3C to +0.9C warming by year 2100 (trends are not predictions)
7. The climate sensitivity to CO2 atmospheric levels has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC
8. The hysterically claimed climate temperature "tipping point" is just that - hysteria
9. Natural climate and/or cyclical phenomenon has likely had a much greater influence on global temperatures than the immense human CO2 emissions
10. There is no "consensus" among HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC regarding global temperatures
With our listing of both the GISS and NCDC trends above (in addition to HadCRUT), one may wonder why they are not considered the IPCC's gold-standard. Well, regarding Nasa's GISS, a scientist from GISS has stated the following to an USA Today journalist:
“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [HadCRUT] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”
So, even the GISS folks hardly view their global temperature dataset as being the gold-standard, why should the IPCC?
Regarding the NOAA/NCDC temperature series, a recent analysis of their dataset revisions show a continuous monthly adjustment effort of historical temperatures that signify more a political agenda versus an impartial science objective. Amazingly, in the month of November 2011 alone, NCDC has published at least 4 different versions of their temperature dataset.
More importantly, the current NOAA chief has turned the science agency into a political and global warming hothouse, where facts and evidence are fabricated or subject to ludicrous revisionism for green political purposes. NOAA has become a science joke and the IPCC can ill afford hitching their wagon to another Green Mafia controlled outfit. Thus, no "gold-standard" for the NCDC temperature dataset.
That leaves the HadCRUT dataset as the gold-standard, which, by the way, finds the globe cooling, not warming - hmmm...did we say that already?
Ben Santer & James Hansen have long been declaring that global warming was accelerating from human CO2 - instead, the real facts reveals their incompetence
Santer and Hansen are two climate modelers that have been spectacularly wrong for so long that it's even painful for skeptics to witness. These two have been cluck-clucking forever about how CO2 levels were causing accelerating and irreversible global warming, with some climate "disruption" thrown in to scare the politicians and policymakers.
However, as the actual empirical evidence through November 2011 reveals, it is highly unlikely that either of these "scientists" could find his own ass with his hands. Even using Santer's own preferred 17-year analysis span (chart on left), it is clear that global warming is insignificant and likely moving towards a cooling phase.
The chart on right shows the climate model abomination that NASA and Hansen base their predictions on. The level of climate science incompetence is mind-boggling. (click on images to enlarge)
The only things Santer and Hansen have managed to succeed at is enrichingthemselves, at the expense of science and the taxpayers.
IPCC science on Antarctica can't withstand scrutiny of experts and technology - Antarctica's polar ice caps are not melting and can't
Recently, we wrote of the bogus science by Josefino Comiso, an IPCC lead author, that attempted to fabricate warming across the Antarctica continent. Either due to extremely sloppy science, or massive stupidity or science corruption, Comiso and his cohorts "found" Antarctica warming and that its polar ice caps were at risk to melting.
Fortunately for the world, the study by the IPCC's Comiso was thoroughly trashed by experts within the peer-reviewed community. That study has now joined Al Gore's discredited climate science in the ash heap of history.
With that said, what is the actual temperature situation across the Antarctica continent? Well, the above map provides some insight to actual temperatures. (click on image to enlarge)
The Antarctica area between the two green circles represents the polar area measured by the state-of-the-art NASA satellite. Since 1978, that entire area has been slightly cooling, not warming, as shown in this previous chart. (The satellite is unable to take measurements for the area within the inner green circle - the doughnut hole area.)
There indeed has been some slight warming in the area of the Antarctica Peninsula but the huge mass of ice sheets actually reside in East and West Antarctica, which measurements show to be cooling.
As can be seen, the temperatures (listed by each red circle) during both the warmest and coldest months (January and July) are well below freezing temperatures. The major ice sheets exist in an interior environment where melting can't occur presently; and, even a future warming of 10 degrees won't cause any melting.
Simply stated, West and East Antarctica are just too freaking cold for any melting to happen, with the exception of coastal areas that already are affected by moderate maritime temperatures.
Despite this actual empirical evidence, the fraud-centric IPCC and its associated scientists still make claims that Antarctica is warming and its gigantic ice caps will soon melt, thus flooding the world. These are flat-out false claims designed to only promote hysteria.
Note: The red circles on the map represent either manned research stations or automatic weather stations. The three temperatures listed for each circle include the average January, the average July and the average annual temperature. For links to average temperature data for each site, go to: Download Antarctica Stations Temps
IPCC 'lead author' Josefino Comiso suppresses peer-reviewed research that completely discredited his previous "Antarctica is warming" study
Read here and here. The IPCC is continuing its tradition of fraudulent bogus climate science for the 2013 climate report by utilizing Climategate-style scientists that excel in global warming fabrication and suppressing research that challenges the blatant fabrication.
As the recent Climategate2.0 emails reveal, research conspiracy, science fraud bogosity and science process malfeasance is alive and flourishing within the IPCC community.
How about this interesting example?
Josefino Comiso is a co-author of the infamous Steig et al. research that attempted to take real warming in the Antarctica Peninsula area and then magically spread it to the rest of Antarctica using rather bizarre techniques. A team of statistical and mathematics experts closely analyzed Comiso's work and found the expanded warming of Antarctica to be entirely bogus based solely on the work's bad math and bad statistical methodology.
"Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is valid was already known."
The team of math/stats experts, O'Donnell et al., published peer-research that establishes, without any scientific doubt, that Steig et al. was literally garbage science, and that warming for the majority of Antarctica was irrelevant to nil.
"When S09 came out, the Authors tried to discuss the Western continent warming only at Real Climate – the continental plot was entirely red though. Crack cocaine for advocates. A huge media blitz ensued proclaiming the warming of the entire continent. Questions arose in the Real Climate thread about the warming pole right away and were dismissed as not important. Objective people knew the now blindingly obvious truth that the red continent had to be an artifact of flawed math. No scientist can accept that plot without question and our initial skepticism was proven out in a prominent journal. True to climategate form, as the IPCC chapters continue to be leaked out, we can see the widespread attempt to ignore O[Donnell et al.]10 and use the incorrect warming caused by math errors of S09 to claim that the Antarctic is in danger of melting – even though it is not."
In fact, the gold-standard and leading edge technology in temperature measurement, satellites, has Antarctica very slightly cooling since 1978, as the above chart depicts. (click on to enlarge)
Antarctica is not warming, nor is it melting. And note that atmospheric CO2 emissions (black dots in chart) have had absolutely no impact on the regional temperatures of Antarctica.
Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence and the complete peer-reviewed refutation of Comiso's Antarctica research, the IPCC chose to put him in charge of the chapter dealing with the Antarctica analysis for the next IPCC report. And the result?
Comiso appears to be suppressing the the peer-reviewed research that refutes his god-awful science, the actual satellite empirical evidence, and ignoring 99.9% of all scientists who know that CO2 is not causing warming/melting in Antarctica.
99.9% ??? The vast majority of scientists look at the above chart and instantly know that the Antarctica warming scare pushed by Comiso is a fabrication - like much of the IPCC "science" the public and policymakers are now identifying as a fabrication. Other than a handful of alarmist Climategate related scientists, no reputable scientist rejects the real Antarctica empirical evidence of 30+ years of slight cooling.
Predicted warming of continental U.S. by climate "experts" is proven to be robustly wrong
As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming actually can't find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
The climate models used by IPCC are incapable of predicting sea surface temperatures (global warming) with any reliability
Read here. Utilizing climate agency provided data and the commonly installed computer spreadsheet program called Excel, Bob Tisdale does a thorough analysis of ocean temperatures and climate model predictions. In a nutshell, Bob's comparative analysis clearly shows how worthless the climate models truly are.
(As an aside, from the Climategate2.0 emails we learn that the top IPCC scientists are so busy plotting and conspiring against other scientists they don't have the time to learn this powerful analytical tool called Excel. This may explain why the IPCC is so clueless about the robust failures of climate models, no?)
The above charts (click to enlarge) produced by Tisdale show both the Northern and Southern hemisphere actual sea surface temperatures (blue). The charts include the IPCC's climate model projection (red) for the last 17 years. As can be seen, the reality of sea surface temperatures and global warming is significantly different than what the IPCC's climate models predicted.
Per the climate models, the projected warming by 2100 is 5 times greater than the trend based on reality in the Southern Hemisphere and approximately 3 times greater for the Northern Hemisphere. This level of climate model error truly makes the IPCC projections worthless even for decadal periods, let alone for year 2100.
Yet, despite the obvious model failure, climate scientists whose financial security is dependent on the taxpayer dole continue to claim in public that climate model projections are accurate, if not the holy gospel of climate science. In private though, the Climategate2.0 emails indicate that climate scientists have little regard for the billion dollar climate model failures.
Welcome to the world of UN-IPCC climate science corruption.
The United Nations bureaucrats & its Climagegate scientists continue pushing the big lies of man-made global warming and climate change
It has been well documented, and agreed to by the vast majority of climate scientists, that global warming has subsided since 1996. This has occurred despite the large increase in CO2 levels; and, of course, despite the prognostications of the UN's Climategate-savant "scientists" who apparently spend most of their research time and monies plotting against other scientists than doing actual science.
With the recent publication of October 2011 HadCRUT global temperatures (the IPCC's gold-standard), it is again confirmed by the empirical evidence that global warming is not driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, which means that the feared climate change is not being driven by man-made CO2 emissions either.
Climate Models Vs. Reality
15 Years - October 2011
17 Years - October 2011
As the above charts reveal, the United Nation's Durban climate conference claims that human CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented, unequivocal and accelerating warming (ie. climate change) are nothing more than fabricated, robust lies. The left most chart plots actual global temperatures (HadCRUT and GISS) versus the predicted outcomes of one of the preeminent climate models. (click on each image to enlarge)
The middle chart plots global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels over the most recent 15 years ending October 2011. The chart on the right is same data plotted but for the 17-year span ending October 2011 (some Climategate scientists insist an extra 2 years makes all the difference when speaking of global warming). The polynomial fitted curves on these two charts indicate that global warming is becoming cooling, and at most, global warming is projected to be less than 1 degree by 2100.
And, as these charts reveal, clearly the IPCC's favored climate models are significantly wrong by orders of magnitude that smack of total incompetence. The UN's anti-scientific claims of global warming, repeated by political hacks like of Al Gore, Obama and Jon Huntsman, are meritless lies designed to push the agenda of global governance favored by the elites, the wealthy and the corporate special interests.
The lies that perpetuate the global warming and climate change hysteria exhibited by Durban conferees are both insidous and never-ending (note the most recent release of Climategate emails). These lies emanate from the bowels of the UN's IPCC and its senior climate "scientists" with no shame or remorse.
"OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, I’ve made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more. I just accepted that you can’t be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. It’s heady, treacherous stuff...I have been a victim of that same self-delusion myself. I understand the sweet seduction that arises from the conviction that your mission is of vital, crucial importance to the whole planet."
NOAA & NCDC Publish Data That Has Global Warming Trend Reaching An Increase of Only +0.95 Degree By 2100
Read here. A couple of month's ago we provided several charts using the new Ben Santer 17-year rule of global warming. Those charts clearly indicated that Ben's hysterical, runaway global warming fears (and the IPCC's) were not related to any empirical climate reality.
In a new press release, Ben Santer (of Climategate-violence fame) again pleads with everyone that 17 years is really the true time span to measure the global warming trend.
Unfortunately for "Gentle" Ben, as this latest adjacent 17-year chart of NOAA/NCDC global temperatures reveals [Excel produced], global warming remains insignificant over the past 17 years, ending as of October 2011; and global temperatures continue a trend towards cooling, while CO2 levels keep growing at a robust pace.
The linear trend of the data implies a barely noticeable warming increase of +0.95C degree by year 2100.
This up-to-date 17-year empirical evidence is irrefutable and confirms the catastrophic global warming skeptics position.
Soooo....why does Ben Santer keep pushing the "CO2-causes-runaway-global-warming" schtick that is without any empirical merit?
Hmmm....would assurring that the free taxpayer, global warming research monies keep on flowing be the likely cause?
Temperature data source here. Carbon chart source here. (click on images to enlarge)
Climate reality keeps defying (mocking?) the IPCC's Climategate scientists. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts.
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this "global cooling" of the U.S continues in spite of the world's ten worst accelerating CO2 emitters (below the red line) over the last two years. The countries increasing their CO2 emissions the most are: South Africa (home of Durban), Egypt, Brazil, Vietnam, Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India and China.
The NOAA/NCDC chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting November 1, 1996 and ending October 31, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending October was the 5th coldest October-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, October 2011 was the 33rd warmest since 1895 (October 1963 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.7°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending October 2011 (November 1, 2001 thru October, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 10.6°Fper century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: These linear temperature trends, as shown in the NOAA chart, are not predictions.
Read here. Despite the recent BEST climate science fiasco, the BEST team has at least confirmed what everyone on the planet agrees to: the globe has warmed since the Little Ice Age; it warmed at an increase rate during the late 20th century; and, global warming disappeared with a subsequent major deceleration during the 21st century. What the BEST researchers did not determine is the cause of the warming - is temperature variation anthropogenic or natural? A new peer reviewed study in a major physics journal provides the answer to that question.
The answer: Yes!
Using advanced statistical techniques, Ludecke et al. concluded that global temperature variation has causes related to both anthropogenic and natural reasons. Depending on a given climate station's temperature measurements, the warming (cooling) trend is likely to be explained, from 40 to 90%, by natural causes. (The remaining anthropogenic causes of temperature change may be a result of greenhouse gases, UHI, land-use, aerosols and etc.)
"We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005...The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation...About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures...that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings...As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered." [Horst-Joachim Ludecke, Rainer Link, and Friedrich-Karl Ewert 2011: International Journal of Modern PhysicsC]
Hmmm....that didn't take long. The BEST research effort is falling on hard times as controversy and infighting between the authors breaks out. It definitely appears that the non-professional, public relations media campaign that Richard Muller initiated (to satisfy his inner needs?) has backfired, resulting in unwanted additional scrutiny and embarrassing criticism of BEST results.
Putting aside this new climate science 'food fight' that has erupted, what does BEST tell us about the recent past temperatures? In review, it is well established, from the latest peer-reviewed studies by climate alarmist scientists, that there has been essentially no warming since 1998 (a very painful admission, no doubt). And many C-AGW skeptics point out that this lack of warming has been consistent since 2001.
Indeed, the above BEST fig. 1 chart does reveal the lack of warming since the beginning of 2001 - the chart represents a per century trend increase of only 0.3°C degrees (three-tenths of a degree). And by using a 6th order fitted curve (light blue) in the fig. 1 chart, the BEST data indicates a recent cooling trend through the end of May 2010.
Did land surface temperatures continue to cool since May of 2010, as the BEST data seemed to be predicting in fig.1?
The best answer is YES! The land temperatures continued their cooling trend - at the end of August 2011, the per century trend over those 15 months (since May 2010) became a -16.3°C trend (minus 16.3C degrees). The plotted data in fig. 2 show this linear trend using the CRU land surface data. (Note: Since BEST data only goes through May 2010, the fig. 2 CRU data was used. CRU has a very tight correlation of 0.86 with the BEST data going back to the early 20th century, which makes it an excellent proxy for BEST.)
The fig. 3 chart is the entire 128-month period (10+ years) of CRU data since January 1, 2001. As both alarmist and skeptic scientists have previously found, the CRU land temperatures show no warming over this extended period. The per century linear trend for this chart is only +0.05C degrees (five-hundredths of a degree). The 6th order polynomial curve indicates that a cooling direction continues through August 2011.
Now, whether this CRU fitted-curve has similar "predictive powers" as the BEST blue curve in fig. 1 is, at "best", a very speculative guess. Regardless, any claims of "accelerating" warming and/or claims that warming is causing severe weather events are without scientific merit as the empirical evidence strongly suggests cooling to be the more relevant issue.
Last week the BEST research team released their findings in regards to land surface temperatures. The BEST data matched up very closely with the IPCC's gold standard, the HadCRUT land temps sub-dataset. In summary, the Berkeley study had a few key points, including:
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon
Since the BEST land surface results were so similar to the Hadley and CRU efforts, it is highly probable that the future BEST research will closely mimic the HadCRUT3 global temperature dataset as shown above in the chart on the left.
The latest HadCRUT dataset report (released today, 10/28/2011) through September 2011 reveals a very insignificant warming over the last 15 years, with zero correlation to increasing CO2 levels. The global HadCRUT linear trend if projected out means a total global temperature increase of +0.3 degrees by year 2100.
The chart on the right tracks the HadCRUT and GISS global temperature anomalies versus the NASA climate model prediction of global temperatures due to CO2 emissions. It is obvious, that the climate models are stupendously wrong in their estimate of the temperature impact of human CO2 emissions - if the models were correct, the HadCRUT and GISS temperature anomalies would resemble Hansen's 'green' curve. (Note: Climate predictions from the IPCC, its models and its experts are consistently wrong.)
Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, one can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions.
Dr. Timothy Ball is a well known climate expert that even the "hockey stick's" infamous Michael Mann pays attention to (grudgingly, we expect). Dr. Ball's background and CV reflect a life of science, achievement, teaching and critical thought about the environment and climate.
The newly released BEST study on land surface temperatures has caused quite a controversy in the blogosphere. We at 'C3' have done two posts on the issue, which reflect our current 'half-empty' and 'half-full' beer glass thoughts on the BEST research. So, we wanted to ask an expert about this complex topic, thus we turned to Dr. Ball to ask his opinions on the subject.
Below, we posed some very basic questions to Dr. Ball. Our questions are in bold and Dr. Ball's responses italicized:
1. What actually did BEST analyze and measure? Global temperatures or a subset of global temperatures?
Answer: It was a subset of global temperatures, however, it was a larger subset than anyone else had used. This appears commendable, however, if the full data set is inadequate, as it is, a bigger subset does not improve the analysis potential. Also those who used smaller subsets did so for a reason. Was it to create a result to support a hypothesis? If so then what is the purpose of the BEST study? To prove that they did just that, or to show that it didn’t matter?
[Ed: The BEST study did not include over 70% of the globe's surface temperatures - namely, no ocean/sea surface temps were included in this study.]
2. Did BEST use different climate station data than that used by NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRUT?
Answer: Yes is the short answer. The problem with the other 3 is they affected the results by the stations they chose. For example, in one year there was a difference of 0.4°C between their global annual averages, which doesn’t sound like much, but consider this against the claim that a 0.7°C increase in temperature over the last approximately 130 years. What people generally ignore, is that in the IPCC estimate of global temperature increase produced by Phil Jones of 0.6°C the error factor was ±0.2°C. An illustration of how meaningless the record and the results are is given by the fact that in many years the difference in global annual average temperature is at least half the 0.7°C figure. In summation, all 4 groups selected subsets, but even if they had used the entire data set they could not have achieved meaningful or significant results.
3. Did BEST use only the best climate stations' data or did they use all stations' data?
Answer: They didn’t use “all” stations or “all’ data from each station. However, it appears there were some limitations of the data that they didn’t consider, as the following quote indicates. Here is a comment in the preface to the Canadian climate normals 1951 to 1980 published by Environment Canada.
“ No hourly data exists in the digital archive before 1953, the averages appearing in this volume have been derived from all available ‘hourly’ observations, at the selected hours, for the period 1953 to 1980, inclusive. The reader should note that many stations have fewer than the 28 years of record in the complete averaging.”
4. Did BEST use the actual raw temperature data, or an "improved" raw dataset, or adjusted temperatures for their analysis?
Answer: The use of the phrase “raw temperature data” is misleading. What all groups mean by the phrase is the data provided to a central agency by individual nations. Under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WM0) each nation is responsible for establishing and maintaining weather stations of different categories. The data these stations record is the true raw data. However, it is then adjusted by the individual national agencies before it is submitted to the central record. Consider the EC [Environment Canada] comment above.
5. If adjusted, did BEST perform the adjustments or another agency (3rd party)?
Answer: They adjusted the data, but most adjustments are only as valid as the original data - not the data they claim was the raw data. For example, the ‘official’ raw data for New Zealand is produced by NIWA and they ‘adjusted’ the “raw” data. The difference is shown in Figure 1. Which set did BEST use?
Figure 1: Temperature record adjustments for New Zealand. It is my understanding that most nations have done similar adjustments.
6. How were the adjustments done?
They are described by BEST here ...... To quote President Obama’s infamous line, it is like lipstick on a pig. Any adjustments don’t improve the complete inadequacy of the raw or adjusted data.
7. Has BEST made public their calculated monthly anomalies and monthly baseline means used to calculate the anomalies for their new temperature series?
Answer: The entire handling of their work has been a disaster. It is not possible to say it was planned but it has completely distorted the stated purpose and results of their work. Their actions are almost too naive to believe they were accidental, especially considering the people involved in the process. Releasing reports to mainstream media before all studies and reports are complete is unconscionable from a scientific perspective. it replicates the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practice of releasing the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) before releasing the Scientific Basis Reports. The panel includes only one climatologist, Judith Curry, who has apparently only recently shifted from a very vigorous pro AGW position and should be very aware of the political implications of the entire issue. There should at least be one skeptical climatologist for balance. The lack of balance is troubling.
They failed to explain how much temperature changes naturally or whether their results are within that range. The original purpose of thirty-year ‘normals’ was to put a statistically significant sample in a context. It appears they began with a mindset that created these problems and it has seriously tainted their work. For example, they say, “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data.” This terminology indicates prejudgement. Why global warming? It doesn’t even accommodate the shift to “climate change “ forced on proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as the facts didn’t fit the theory. Why not just refer to temperature trends? Ironically, the one difference in the results between plots using the BEST data and the other agencies is a distinct downturn of temperature in the Land-only record. (source of below chart: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/22/a-preliminary-assessment-of-bests-decline/#more-49792 )
8. From your preliminary review of the BEST research, what do you like best of their methodology? What are the shortcomings of their methodology?
There is nothing I like best. The fact they even attempted the project indicates lack of knowledge or understanding of the inadequacies of the data set in space or time or subsequent adjustments. Lamb spoke to the problem when he established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). On page 203 of his autobiography he said,
“When the Climatic Research Unit was founded, it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important. A worldwide record was needed particularly on the time scale of human history a project which surprisingly no other body had attempted in any coordinated way.” “We are living in a time when the glamour of the much more expensive work of the mathematical modeling laboratories, and the tempting prospect of their theoretical predictions are stealing the limelight. The confidence generally characterizing the pronouncements from those quarters has since given way to more cautious statements in later years. It does not seem to have been widely recognized that the theoreticians work was proceeding without adequate prior study (or any sure understanding) of the sometimes drastic swings of climate that have occurred over periods from a few years or decades to some centuries, often settling in abruptly and some of them still unexplained.”
The BEST study confirms Lamb’s concerns. It adds nothing to advancing the understanding of the degree of climate change. Until that is adequately defined and described there is no hope of determining the underlying causes and mechanisms of change. The failure to understand the complete inadequacy of the existing temperature record is troubling. It makes it appear that there is an incompetence or a political motive, or both.
Thank you, Dr. Ball.
Note: 'C3' is a C-AGW skeptic with views similar to the majority of skeptics. Supposedly, the BEST study is said to challenge the core beliefs of skeptics. Since I, like most skeptics, believe that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age, the BEST study does not challenge my beliefs one iota. The authors of the BEST study confirm that they have not proven, nor dis-proven, the AGW hypothesis.
How does the BEST temperature dataset relate to the datasets of the major climate agencies? Using the BEST monthly anomaly data and the handy Excel correlation function, since 2001 the BEST dataset matches up quite well with the NCDC and CRU data, as the adjacent chart shows.
In essence, when NCDC and CRU temperatures 'zig,' the BEST temps are probably doing the same.
And GISS temps? Not so well. In fact, it's the worst. In contrast, when BEST and the other agency anomalies are 'zigging,' GISS is likely to be 'zagging.' This GISS divergence problem also extends to its performance versus the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, as previously pointed out by skeptics.
Why doesn't the GISS dataset comport with climate reality as documented by other sources and experts? Hmmm...one thinks global warming fame and fortune is not likely to visit those who report modest or little warming.
Since it is now clear that GISS isn't up to the "BEST" standards of science, and there is no good reason for NASA to be in the temperature reporting business in the first place, it's time to fold the GISS tent and save taxpayers some money - outsource the GISS efforts to BEST and be done with it.
Now that BEST has shown GISS to be a wasteful, error-prone (remember the Y2K error) redundancy, maybe it's time to shine a bright light on the idiocy emanating from NOAA's NCDC - their temperature dataset should also be on the hot seat of scrutiny also.
Here is an agency that seemingly has the bizarre mission to change historical temperature anomalies on a monthly basis - literally, every single month. Take the very first month of the NCDC temperature dataset, January 1880. Over the past six months, NCDC has changed the January 1880 anomaly six (6) times.
Sept. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0443
Aug. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0474
July 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0468
June 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0444
May 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0439
April 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0428
And it's not just a single month they perform this type of climate science magic on. When NCDC reported the anomalies dataset for the September 2011 reporting period, NCDC had changed every single historical month's anomaly as reported in the August 2011 dataset. They changed all 1,580 months of past temperature reporting, adding in a cumulative warming of +0.0966 in a single stroke! Did we say bizarre yet?
The folks at HadCRU don't practice this blatant monthly form of "global warming" revisionism. The folks at GISS aren't constantly revising historical temperature reporting on a monthly basis. And it's hard to imagine that BEST research team would condone, let alone practice, this style of empirical climate evidence tampering.
If BEST plays their cards right and performs in an upright, objective manner, it's not hard imagining that all of the GISS and NCDC temperature measurement/reporting efforts (not necessarily climate analysis and modeling) being on the chopping block. This would likely result in the U.S. finally having a 'BEST'-of-breed global surface temperature reporting system that could be taken seriously by all sides of the debate.
Climate reality keeps defying (mocking?) the IPCC's Climategate scientists. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting October 1, 1997 and ending September 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending September was the 7th coldest September-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, September 2011 was the 21st warmest since 1895 (September 1998 was the warmest.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.2°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending September 2011 (October 1, 2001 thru September 30, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 9.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records. These
Let's say you're a global warming alarmist. You are convinced that increasing CO2 levels has resulted in accelerating temperature change, producing the infamous "runaway," and the out-of-control "tipping point" of global warming.
Helloooo.....you're wrong, big time. (click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset reveals, per the adjacent chart, that modern 10-year (120-month) temperature changes are not accelerating higher, nor are they absolutely higher. For example, AGW alarmism predicts that the January 2011 temperature anomaly would be exceptionally higher than the 2001 January temperature anomaly. In fact, it was lower. How can that be?
Clearly, as the above graph depicts, increasing CO2 levels do not necessarily cause accelerating temperature increases as the AGW theory predicts. Why?
Okay.....time to be blatantly objective: The CO2-warming prediction theory is the direct result of the UN's IPCC political committee, which conducts zero climate science research on its own - instead, it only seeks opinions that supports its own theory. A UN theory that no known empirical data supports, literally.
As a result, the IPCC would never, ever share the above HadCRUT temperature change graph with the public. Think about it. Honestly, why would they ever reveal real-world facts that contradict their own specifically chosen theory?
In a previous post, we listed severe weather events from the decades of 1950, 60 and 70. Clearly, recent years (as focused on by Gore et al) are not the only ones to experience horrendous weather as a result of "climate change."
Al Gore also contends that recent warming (supposedly due to human CO2 emissions) is a sure symptom of "climate change," and, btw, the world can expect anywhere from a 5 to 10 C degree global temperature increase by 2100, based on the current trend. Really? Is that his own "reality"?
Well...the adjacent chart of projected temperature change by year 2100, based on the July 2011 10-year linear trend, reveals a century-ending temperature change that only amounts to a -0.7 C (yes, that's a minus).
Obviously, "reality" and Gore's brain are not a good scientific match.
What's even more interesting from this chart is the extreme variability that exists within the climate system, when viewing projected year 2100 temperature change at different points in time. For example, in 1942, the 10-year linear trend indicated that by year 2100 global temperatures would increase by some 6 degrees. And a few short years later, the 10-year linear trend in 1951 suggested a large decrease in global temperatures of 6.7 degrees by 2100.
The graph's green curve is a simple 20-year average of the rolling 10-year linear trends. Per the recent temperature data, the green curve reveals our current "climate change" is not extreme nor extraordinary.
So...what can we reasonably speculate/conclude from the above chart?
Linear trends are not very good predictions
Projected high temperature change by year 2100, per Gore and others, is not believable
Global temperatures are not experiencing "accelerating" warming
Global warming is not "unequivocal"
Global warming is not in a "runaway" condition
Global climate, as represented by temperatures, has always shown extreme variability
19th & 20th century extrmeme climate change was not driven by human CO2 emissions (climate change prior to huge modern CO2 emissions)
More recent climate change variation may actually have been moderated by modern human CO2 emissions
This stark, indisputable empirical evidence is completely inconsistent with AGW theory and associated climate models
Any U.S. presidential nominee candidate who claims "global warming" from human CO2 emissions should be an important priority is a non-scientific imbecile
Actually, more concern by all should be directed towards the potential of extreme global cooling, based on the most current 10-year trend
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) It's another case where "global" is not so global when it comes to warming. All scientists now concur with the empirical evidence that in the Southern Hemisphere, over the last 15 years, global warming has gone missing. Now a new analysis says it's been missing in New Zealand for the last 100 years.
Using robust, compliant statistical techniques, scientists analyzed the New Zealand temperature dataset. Their findings:
"When corrected with accepted scientific techniques, the official New Zealand Temperature Record (NZTR) shows that there has been no measurable change in mean temperatures during 1909-2009...“This study generally follows in the footsteps of NIWA’s NZTR Review, released last December, except in one vital aspect” said Coalition chairman, Barry Brill, “The difference is that we have scrupulously followed the statistical techniques described in the scientific literature, while NIWA did not.”...The historical data shows a warming rate of 0.29°C per century, while the corrected figure is 0.26°C per century. But both amounts are within the margins of error, and are effectively zero."
Read here. Over 2,000 previous peer-reviewed studies are severely tainted with bad data from the often used ERA-40 Reanalysis regarding Arctic region temperature trends. Researchers Screen and Simmonds concluded that this dataset should no longer be relied on in future studies, which implies that many past studies indicating Arctic warming are robustly in error.
Essentially, group-think consensus science by "experts" at its worst: "Hey...why don't we all use the same computer output for every Arctic study." Brilliant.
"This study explicitly documents a discontinuity in the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) that leads to significantly exaggerated warming in the Arctic mid- to lower troposphere, and demonstrates that the continuing use of ERA-40 to study Arctic temperature trends is problematic...Decadal or multidecadal Arctic temperature trends calculated over periods that include 1997 are highly inaccurate...It is shown that ERA-40 is poorly suited to studying Arctic temperature trends and their vertical profile, and conclusions based upon them must be viewed with extreme caution. Consequently, its future use for this purpose is discouraged."....."Such an error not only affects the Arctic troposphere, but necessarily must effect the entire northern hemisphere jet stream."[James A. Screen, Ian Simmonds 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Per new peer-reviewed study by Genthon et al., it appears that the recent modest warming in Antarctica may likely be due to erroneous readings from a specific type of thermometer.
"Observations of atmospheric temperature made on the Antarctic plateau with thermistors housed in naturally (wind) ventilated radiation shields are shown to be significantly warm biased by solar radiation. High incoming solar flux and high surface albedo result in radiation biases in Gill (multiplate) styled shields that can occasionally exceed 10°C in summer in case of low wind speed...Although stronger and more frequent when incoming solar radiation is high, biases exceeding 8°C are found even when solar is less than 200 Wm−2." [Christophe Genthon, Delphine Six, Vincent Favier, Matthew Lazzara, Linda Keller 2011: Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology]
When looking at the temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting August 1, 1997 and ending July 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending July was the 5th coldest July-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, July 2011 was the 4th warmest since 1895 (July 1936 was the warmest.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.5°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending July 2011 (August 1, 2001 thru July 30, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 12.4°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Read here. As the dotted trend line indicates on this German temperature chart, "global warming" is not so happening in Germany. The same is likely true for a number of nearby central European states.
And, to add to the AGW-alarmist scientists misery, and as most 'C3' readers are aware, "global warming" in the U.S. has actually been global cooling over the last 15 years, according to NOAA temperature datasets.
The fact that majors areas of the globe are cooling explains why warming has been trivial over the last 15 years, across the world. The lack of massive warming is a significant invalidation of the AGW hypothesis and runs counter to every major climate model based on the assumption that the climate in incredibly sensitive to human CO2 emissions.
Despite the hundreds of billions spent on these models and associated taxpayer expenditures on AGW research, the evidence is now conclusive that they are unable to predict accurately.
The HadCRUT monthly anomalies were just updated through June 2011. Below are two relevant charts: one indicating the failure of NASA's climate model predictions; and, the other chart revealing the lack of global warming.
Read here. It's become common knowledge that the UN's IPCC objective is not one of impartial, scientific analysis of climate change but instead one biased towards political governance and economic control goals. As a result, significant, non-CO2 impacts on global warming are either ignored or trivialized by the IPCC. The urban heat island (UHI) effect on temperature records is one such impact that the IPCC keeps trying to minimize but the actual science keeps refuting the IPCC's agenda-driven science.
Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. This study represents additional empirical evidence that significant global warming is not exclusively due to the IPCC's politically correct causation, CO2 emissions.
"Monthly mean surface air temperature data from 463 meteorological stations, including those from the 1981–2007 ordinary and national basic reference surface stations in east China and from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, are used to investigate the effect of rapid urbanization on temperature change...The trends of urban heat island (UHI) effects...are generally consistent and indicate that rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade. [Xuchao Yang, Yiling Hou, Baode Chen 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]