The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.
Whether the "experts" are the IPCC's climate models or associated scientists, their climate predictions for Northern Hemisphere snow extent, i.e., square kilometer coverage, have been robustly wrong...
(click on chart to enlarge)
The IPCC has become globally infamous for their atrocious climate change, global warming predictions (read brief summary).
There are multiple examples of the up-to-date empirical evidence confirming that the IPCC's doomsday climate predictions are without merit - here, here, here and here are just a few examples.
And at the close of March 2014, it is now possible to compare the latest empirical evidence versus the IPCC "expert" prediction that human CO2 emissions would severely reduce snow coverage across the Northern Hemisphere during winter months (December, January, February and March).
As this accompanying chart obviously indicates, snow extent has actually increased over the short term (see 3-year average curve); and since the beginning of the dataset, winter snows have ranged within a narrow band.
During any given year's winter, there are periods of extremely large snow extent, soon to be followed by low extremes. This natural variation occurs despite the growing surge of CO2 emissions, as denoted by the methodically increasing black step-curve.
For many regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the past several winters since 2007 have witnessed brutal winters of extreme snow and cold, which the upsurge of the chart's 3-year average curve corroborates. As additional corraboration, there is the actual global sea ice growth that also mocks the "expert" IPCC predictions.
Addtional severe-weather articles and charts. Chronological list of severe weather/climate events.
Note: Datasets used to plot Excel chart: snow and CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Proponents of the CAGW gloom and doom disaster scenarios often say that we need to "connect the dots" to understand how CO2 emissions are causing dangerous "accelerated" global warming.
Of course, these alarmists hope no one will actually "connect the dots," which is the almost guaranteed case for mainstream science journalists, TV pundits, politicians and Hollywood celebrities - those icons of mental laziness and politically correct thinking.
But what happens when one does actually connect-the-dots?
Well, the real world climate reality is then discovered: global warming has stalled and global cooling trends are appearing (see the UK and the US), confirmed by the scientific empirical evidence.
This adjacent chart for the global temperature trends (using the HC4 temperature dataset published by the UK's premier climate research agency) provides compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are not producing disastrous global warming trends.
As the chart reveals, today's per century trends are dominated by cooling for the different time periods; today's trends are multiple times below prior period, historical highs; the 5, 8 and 10-year trends are definitely below the average modern trend (1950 through 2013); and all the trends are significantly less than those reached 15 years ago (see black dotted lines for year-end 1998 trend levels).
As an aside, in the future, as the 15-year trend moves further and further from the persistent temperature impacts of 1997 and 1998, it too will likely become a negative trend.
None of today's trends even approach the IPCC's predicted trend range of 2 to 6 degrees (C) per century that its "experts" and climate models told us long ago were being experienced (unfortunately, they mistook the natural climate's super El Niño's huge impact during 1997/98 as confirmation of CO2-induced warming).
As readily apparent, because of natural climate feedback forces, yesterday's over-hyped accelerated warming (eg, 1998) can quickly reverse course, delivering robust deceleration and even global cooling.
And that's what one learns from the empirical climate science when the "dots" are truly connected.
More of that connect-the-dot style of climate science reality: modern global and regional temperature charts.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate moving 5-year, 8-year, 10-year and 15-year per century trends (ie, slopes), chart column bars and line curve. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
Other IPCC consensus "experts" are wildly throwing around a hodgepodge of reasons that at last count was up to eight. Take your pick.
One reason definitely not on the table for discussion by climate reality deniers resisters is the obvious one: increasing CO2 levels are having little impact on global temperatures, which means that nature's normal climate forces overwhelm any CO2 influence. For the consensus scientists to open this can-of-worms would be the death knell of the AGW hypothesis - scientists driven by greed and the limelight do not willingly eviscerate the golden ox that has produced multi-billions for research grants and scientific studies.
Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.
This obvious climate reality is portrayed in the above chart. Literally, 3-year changes in CO2 levels have no correlation with 3-year changes in global temperatures for the IPCC's modern era, starting with 1950. Simply put, one does not have to be a rocket scientist, nor a climate scientist, to ascertain that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is severely dysfunctional.
Eventually, global warming phase will return, as it always has in the past, but the climate models' prediction outcomes (and credibility) will likely be even worse, if that is even possible.
Poll after poll clearly indicates that Americans do not believe the Obama administration's anti-science claims (bogus?) regarding climate change and global warming.
Most Americans understand the day-to-day climate reality, thus they handily reject the climate hysteria and gutter-smears that both Obama and John Kerry feel compelled to utter.
As this accompanying chart reveals, global temperature change has decelerated and is now in negative (ie, global cooling) territory - the pink dot denotes current climate reality during the Obama administration.
This empirical evidence from the UK's climate research agency is the gold-standard, utilized by the UN's IPCC.
The red curve is a plot of 5-year "acceleration" (or lack thereof) presented as 5-year per century trend data-points (based on 60-month linear trends calculated for each month since 1850). The black plot represents a simple 10-year moving average of the 60-month data-points.
Why 5 years? Reality: The Obama administration has occupied the White House for the last 5 years.
What does the chart establish? Reality: Since a peak of warming "acceleration" during the second Bush administration, the short-term global warming trend has collapsed during Obama's term. Indeed, short-term global cooling is the current scientific fact.
How does the current short-term trend compare to previous administrations? Reality: During the modern era since 1950, Democrat administrations under Carter and Clinton reached the greatest warming accelerations (respectively, a 7.8°C/century trend during 1980 and a 8.4°C/century during 1998).
For comparisons sake, those 5-year acceleration peaks exceeding 5.0°C/century have been labeled on the chart with their respective White House occupants. And note, the greatest global warming short-term accelerations took place prior to 1950, plus being prior to the large influx of post-WWII consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
When should a future president and the public become concerned about global warming caused climate change? Reality: When warming finally exceeds the unprecedented per century trend rate (11.5°C) previously reached during the Rutherford Hayes administration (1877-1881), for an extended period (say, 2 years as a minimum).
Again, the pink dot on the chart tells the climate science reality: Per the empirical evidence, the recent White House anti-science climate change comments are blatantly false, without any scientific merit, and are deserving of multiple Pinocchio badges.
More climate science reality: Those modern global and regional temperature charts that don't lie.
Dataset used in Excel to calculate 5-year slopes, 10-year averages and plots. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how. Source of Pinocchio image.
Scientists associated with the UN's IPCC predicted that the huge consumer/industrial emissions of the modern era would cause not only "unprecedented" global warming but also dangerous "runaway" warming, which would then produce "tipping point" climate change.
The climate science consensus today is that these speculative climate forecasts, based on flawed computer models, did not happen and expert analysis of the gold-standard of temperature datasets (the UK's global HadCRUT4) confirms it.
As this adjacent chart reveals, modern warming increases over the last 60 years don't even match the warming increases of the prior 60-year period, when earlier human emissions were just a fraction of contemporary amounts. (The vast difference of increases for atmospheric CO2 levels, between the two 60-year periods, is depicted on the chart - an 18ppm increase for the earlier period versus an 82ppm increase for the modern 60-year period.)
The climate science fact that huge modern CO2 emissions did not generate the expected runaway warming over the long-term, nor even over the shorter-term, now has the establishment science journals questioning the obvious - how was the IPCC so wrong?
And this empirical evidence refutation of conventional climate science has become so glaring, that even the traditional mainstream press is finally taking notice that something is truly amiss regarding the IPCC's climate science orthodoxy.
IPCC scientists assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, remaining anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years.
This assumption is a cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis. The cumulative CO2 growth causes global warming that accelerates (they hypothesize) to a condition of "runaway" temperature increases via positive feedbacks, leading to catastrophic "tipping point" climate change.
To simplify, the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis, and climate models, assume that every additional emission molecule of atmospheric CO2 will accelerate the global warming, to the point of no return. Thus, each new tonne (metric) of CO2 will boost the acceleration via a theoretical positive feedback amplification.
But does the empirical evidence actually indicate that is indeed what is taking place?
Using a combination of the NOAA annual global temperature dataset and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.
This article's chart provides the answer. As can be observed, each new CO2 emission molecule added to the climate has a smaller and small impact, the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. In 1941, the degree increase per tonne hit a peak. Since then, the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne.
The AGW hypothesis does not account for this ever smaller impact of CO2. Possibly this is the reason for the "consensus" unexpected global warming 'hiatus', which the IPCC scientists are still at a loss to explain.
If this tiny impact stays constant over the next 30 years, and the growth rate of CO2 emissions over the last 15 years remains the same for the next 30 years (another trillion tonnes emitted), the potential increase of global temperatures will barely be +0.2°C (two-tenths of a degree) by year 2044. And if each tonne's impact continues to shrink, as the evidence suggests, so will the temperature increase shrink.
Now, adding to this miserably low warming influence of CO2 is the recent admission by establishment climate science that natural climatic forces have a powerful say in the trend of global temperatures, regardless of human CO2 emissions. As the Nature science journal indicates, currently, and for the near future, a natural PDO cooling phase may dominate.
More on the above 'C3' chart. Specifically, it plots a ratio of 30-year NOAA temperature changes to the cumulative amount of CO2 tonnes emitted up to that point. For example, the 1941 ratio has a numerator of +0.59°C (30-year annual temperature change) and a denominator of 165 billion CO2 tonnes (the cumulative amount emitted from 1880 through 1941). This ratio calculation is made for each year, starting with 1910 (30 years after 1880).
The ratio allows for depicting visually the influence of all those previous CO2 emissions on moving 30-year climate periods. The chart's additional green and light blue curves simply provide a smoothed sense of direction of the fossil fuel emission influence.
Summary: The observed shrinking of CO2's influence on global warming does not bode well for the future longevity of the AGW hypothesis. Per the well known and documented CO2 physics, this outcome should not be a surprise. It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' in science.
There is an enduring myth that global temperatures are accelerating, produced by ever greater amounts of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. The myth is popularized by anti-science propagandists, who are either driven by political agendas or irrational fears.
The myth facilitators actually claim that the world is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. This ludicrous claim is completely counter to all known empirical, scientific evidence.
At least 97% of climate scientists would not make this claim, since it is well established that global temps have stalled for 16+ years, and even the most pro-AGW scientists are now admitting that the lack of warming is likely due to natural forces.
The enduring myth of "accelerating" is a leftover from earlier IPCC climate reports and the original AGW hypothesis that speculated greater levels of atmospheric CO2 would generate "runaway" global warming leading to a catastrophic "tipping point" climate change. That's how 'AGW' turned into 'CAGW'.
Well, neither has happened, which the indisputable and unequivocal evidence is clear about.
The above chart plots the changing 3-year linear trend slopes using monthly observations going back to 1850 (this is the HadCRUT4 dataset from the UK climate research agency - it is the only global dataset going back that far).
The plot clearly shows that temperatures will achieve short-term accelerations, both cooling and warming. The evidence also shows that any acceleration is a temporary phenomenon that then is reversed. The greatest period of accelerating warming took place during the late 1870s when a short-lived +23.4°C per century pace was reached.
The greatest acceleration for the modern era was reached in 1998 (+17.5°C per century rate), some 6 degrees below the earlier record a 100+ years before. The 1998 peak was a direct result of natural climate forces, the super El Nino of 1997-1998.
The chart also includes a 3-year average plot of atmospheric CO2 levels, which reflects a never-ceasing growth (exception being WWII years).
Obviously, to the eye, the level of CO2 has no relationship with "accelerating" cooling or warming. The statistical correlation between CO2 and acceleration level is barely above zero - an indicator that the agenda-driven myth has absolutely no empirical legs, so-to-speak.
Finally, the chart has a 120-period (10-year) average of the 3-year per century trends of acceleration/deceleration. This dark curve has a black circle around the 2013 endpoint. Simply put, accelerating, rapid warming is not happening presently (but rest assured, it will happen in the future, just like it has in the past - and that's what natural climate change does, no human CO2 required).
Recently, the world's major climate agencies published their year-end empirical datasets for global temperatures.
How does actual climate reality compare with the IPCC's 2013 proclamation that their "extremely likely" predictions of global temperatures? With 95% certainty, embarrassingly bad. (click on chart to enlarge)
The chart on the left is a plot of the IPCC's RCP4.5 model output versus the climate reality, as represented by the UK's HadCRUT4 global monthly temperature dataset. The bright red and blue curves are simple 3-year moving averages that visually removes all the monthly gyrations.
It is clear that the IPCC's state-of-the-art 2013 climate models start diverging from climate reality around the 1995 period. And the divergence continues to widen to the point where one could conclude that any future output will be extremely unlikely to be of any value to policymakers.
Put another way, these billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded super-computer model simulations have performed atrociously, and are entirely worthless at predicting future climate scenarios.
How did this happen?
While the IPCC's associated climate "experts" are going through their own set of mental gyrations to explain the abysmal climate model and AGW hypothesis performances, two scientists explain how this failure was produced - article number one and article number two.
If you are curious as to the 'whys' of IPCC climate consensus failure, these articles are a must read. For those short on time, though, in a nutshell a compiled summary of reasons for failure:
natural climate variability ignorance
de-emphasis of large uncertainty
dogmatic co2-AGW orthodoxy
Until the above are adequately addressed and fixed, the probability that climate models will predict with accuracy that policymakers can actually rely on is extremely unlikely, with 99.9% certainty.
Central England Temperatures (click images to enlarge)
Recent mainstream press articles, plus those on the blogosphere, indicate a growing concern for a soon-to-come global cooling period, that some are even referring to as a potential mini-ice age. This sudden turn of events is entirely counter to all the "expert" consensus and IPCC predictions that claimed runaway global warming was civilization's greatest threat.
The impetus for the new publicized fears of cooling comes from the indisputable empirical evidence that global warming is suffering a non-predicted 'hiatus' (i.e. warming is stalled, paused, stopped, etc.) these last 15+ years. Combine that pause with the additional empirical evidence of solar activity being at a minimum and major ocean oscillations being in non-warming phases and that combo spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
One region of the world that may already be experiencing the impacts of a global cooling phase is The Midlands of central England.
The above charts are plots of the Central England (CE) Temperature record. The left chart plots the annual dataset (light green) back to inception, 1659AD. The maroon curve is a simple 25-year average of the annual temperatures. The chart also includes a plot of a 25-year average of annual CO2 atmospheric levels.
Obviously, the CE region has had a high degree of climate temperature variability over the records 355 years, coupled with an observed warming trend generated with the rebounding from the depths of the Little Ice Age (LIA).
Starting in the early 1700s, there are signs the warning rebound was beginning, but it wasn't until the late 1800's that one can discern a strong post-LIA warming trend that ushers in the modern era. This positive spike of temperatures was well before the huge CO2 consumer/industrial emissions of the late 20th century.
Actually, using the 25-year moving average curve, one can see 3 distinct periods of recovery from the LIA. By the end of 2013, the 25-year average appears to reach its peak - the "warmest" ever.
However, by zooming in on the last 25 years since 1988 a different story is told - a climate cooling story.
The chart on the right is a plot of CE temperatures since 1988 - yes, the same year that climate scientists warned us that we were at global warming's death door. The chart's red and grey curves are 3-year averages and a linear trend line has been added (dark green).
Clearly, as this plot of modern temperatures reveals, for 25 years the CE region has had a slight cooling trend. This trend would produce an overall cooling of +0.53°C by 2100AD, if it were to monotonously continue (it won't). Adding to the consensus "expert" woes, any observed relationship between temperatures and CO2 levels is non-existent, if not a negative correlation over the last 2.5 decades.
If huge emissions of CO2 are not driving temperature increases, then the apparent cooling must be a function of more powerful forces, such as described in this latest peer-reviewed study. With that said, all empirical evidence points to the fact that climate science remains unsettled and that the CO2-centric CAGW hypothesis is essentially without clothes.
The 2013 climate reality has been a harsh mistress to those cult doomsday scientists and proponents who constantly embarrass themselves by denying the actual climate evidence.
While this latest "global warming" PR nightmare exposes the absurdity of the doomsday cult science, the new IPCC climate report ('AR5') continues to promulgate the doomsday, anti-science scenarios for the news media. Yet, this latest report has quietly moderated the long IPCC tradition of climate reality denial.
Analyzing the IPCC's latest publication details found deep inside the the AR5 report (which the mainstream media always fails to read), the IPCC has been forced to lower their global warming temperature predictions "projections."
Essentially, the IPCC's long denial of non-catastrophic warming has been mugged by climate change reality.
The above chart (click to enlarge) depicts the robust and significant lowering of the IPCC's predictions regarding human CO2-induced global warming. Despite being forced to drop their medium assessment down to a a rather low +1.7°C per century trend, the actual empirical evidence, from both the land/sea surface and satellite atmospheric observations, indicates that the IPCC will again be forced in the future to lower their predictions projections even further.
Due to the climate reality of observed per century trends, ranging from 0.0 to +1.1°C, the next ratchet down by the IPCC may be in the 1.25°C per century realm.
Unfortunately, for many years the IPCC has successfully practiced climate reality denial, with the gleeful support of mainstream science "journalists" who just love their climate disaster porn. No longer, though, it would seem.
The climate change realists are now forcing objective scientific analysis on both the climate-doomsday, anti-CO2 cultists and the big government funded scientists who promote that fringe anti-science agenda. It's a welcome change - the global audience is finally learning the truth about the real climate change and the actual lackluster global warming.
The IPCC's catastrophic AGW (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the prediction that human CO2 emissions would produce a "hotspot" in the atmosphere above the tropics. This hotspot was identified by the IPCC as the penultimate evidence that global warming was accelerating, causing a "tipping point" cascade of catastrophic events.
The projected hotspot over the tropics was expected to stretch from the 5km mark to as high as 15km, with the hottest portion being from 8-12km. The temperatures in this specific area were supposed to rise 1.2 to 1.5 times faster than surface temperatures, due to positive feedback loop produced by the CO2-induced warming.
Big problem though. As this chart of the lower troposphere (over the tropic latitudes) documents, NASA satellites are unable to locate this mysterious, runaway "hotspot" (AGW "signature" and/or "fingerprint") that the IPCC and global warming alarmists have long predicted. This despite NASA satellites having 100% coverage over the entire tropical troposphere, including the critical water vapor areas of the lower and mid-troposphere.
In fact, this specific area of the troposphere has only warmed a fraction of the IPCC's predictions, turning the "hotspot" into the embarrassing "AWOLspot." Additionally, this means that the feared AGW positive feedback loop went kaput, or it never really existed, except in the "consensus" hive mind of the alarmist-science collective.
Additional chart info: the red-dotted curve is a basic 36-month moving average; the green curve is 6th order fitted trend of monthly measurements; and the grey area represents the cumulative per cent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. (Since satellite monitoring of atmospheric temperatures began, the cumulative growth of CO2 ppm levels has been over 18%.)
Per this satellite empirical evidence, the existing linear temperature trend of the low-troposphere tropic latitudes is ludicrously small, indicating that 2100AD temperatures may only increase by +0.6°C (necessary warning: trends are not predictions, don't go there). For the mid-troposphere tropics, the trend is even lower, +0.3°C. Compare those low trend rates with the modest warming trend of the entire atmosphere: +1.2°C by 2100AD.
And the comparison to the surface temps? NASA/GISS has a linear trend for the same time period projecting an outcome of +1.3°C by 2100AD.
Yep, you read that correctly. The tropical hotspot trends are lower than the global atmospheric trend and the global surface trend - a magnificent and spectacular fail of IPCC climate "science."
The simple, indisputable, scientific summary after 35 years of empirical evidence: The tropical, runaway hotspot did not happen in spite of massive amounts of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere; ergo, the IPCC was wrong, again; the billion-dollar climate model predictions were wrong, again; alarmist, agenda-driven scientists' claims of climate doomsday were wrong, again; and, the fanatical anti-CO2 green lobby was wrong, as always.
Note: Links to datasets used in Excel to create chart: UAH satellite & NOAA CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.
The IPCC's climate science has long claimed that human CO2 emissions are producing an accelerated global warming, with a "runaway" warming trend, which is then being amplified in the north and south polar extremes. This dangerous warming is, of course, causing the ice sheets to melt, unleashing catastrophic sea level rise, and thus swamping coastal regions and low-lying islands, as we speak!
Hmmm.....despite over 845 billion tons of human CO2 emissions being added to the biosphere since 1978, that predicted dangerous warming, and associated catastrophes, have yet to materialize.
A BIG-TIME FAIL, no? As many are now saying, a rather robust and very significant embarrassment for all of the "consensus" involved: including the IPCC, the United Nations' science "experts," the governing elites and bureaucrats.
This huge fail is amplified because the South Pole region that includes Antarctica has done the opposite - literally a cooling temperature trend over the last 35 years.
NASA's satellites have now been measuring global temperatures for a full 35 years (420 months through November 2013), including the Antarctic. The above chart documents the measured southern polar region temperatures.
As can be seen, there has been a cooling trend - granted, a very tiny -0.04°C/century, but it remains far removed from the IPCC's unicorn science of "amplified" and dangerous polar warming.
And not only has it not warmed, the Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record amount.
Well, you might now be wondering if that imminent, catastrophic Antarctica ice sheets melting and collapse are still imminent...as predicted. Nope. Eating a huge amount of that cooling crow, the IPCC has recently labeled that outcome as "extremely unlikely".....Ooops!!
In summary, those stubborn facts that are the archenemy of climate change alarmists are without mercy - after 35 years of high tech measurements, the South Pole region has nada, zilch, goose egg, naught, aught, nil, nix, nothing, null, zero, zip and zippo warming. Nuff said.
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.
As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.
This latest study confirms that the state-of-the-art climate models have proven to be no better at predicting Arctic clouds and sea ice than their grossly inaccurate predecessors.
And as these plots (source) of polar sea ice indicate, the global sea ice area and extent exhibit an increasing trend that is the polar opposite of the IPCC's those fabled "expert" predictions.(bad pun intended)
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.
Climate reality and the IPCC's predictions often wildly diverge. The well understood reason for this divergence is simply a result of the UN's political agenda, pushed aggressively by its bureaucrats and sponsored "scientists".
An example of its agenda science is shown in the adjacent plot of actual sea level rise versus 2100AD predictions. (click plot to enlarge)
At the bottom of the chart is the plot of actual sea level rise calculated by Colorado University using satellite measurements. Per this empirical evidence, the sea level trend since 1992 suggest that oceans will rise some 11 inches by 2100AD.
An 11" rise by century-end is definitely not a catastrophe and certainly an outcome that humans can adapt to/cope with. And clearly, it represents a 2100AD level substantially below the IPCC's predicted 24" rise.
The IPCC's prediction not only does not comport with climate reality, other expert research indicates that sea level rise by 2100AD will amount to only a 4-6" increase. Two recent studies, one by NOAA and another by China's experts, represent 'those stubborn facts' that are continually undermining the IPCC prediction fantasies.
When assessing future climate forecasts, it's best to remember that the IPCC's "scientific" reports are climate exaggerations produced by their mandated UN political agenda. Climate science reality is an entirely different animal, though.
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.
Steve McIntyre analyzed the Southern Hemisphere historical temperature information contained in the recent IPCC AR5 report and documents an amazing discovery.
Extreme, absurd cherry-picking that defies objective, impartial science.
In essence, the IPCC's representation of Southern Hemisphere temperature changes is biased with unrelated Northern Hemisphere paleo-temperature datasets; the IPCC ignores established, widely accepted Southern datasets such as Antarctica's ice core evidence, as displayed here (click on image to enlarge).
Not only does the IPCC avoid utilization of the the inconvenient Vostok ice core temperatures that reveal the Medieval Warming period for the Southern latitudes, they chose to use Northern datasets that have been widely criticized for being error-filled and massively manipulated via questionable, non-standard statistical techniques.
Like previous IPCC reports, the AR5 edition obviously shares the agenda-science traits of absurd cherry-picking, gross misrepresentations and ludicrous fabrications, which confirms the accusations that green-alarmists have completely corrupted climate science.
Note: As the chart depicts, the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has exhibited an overall cooling trend over the last 5,000 years, with multiple peaks and valleys. This persistent cooling trend is also evident from the Greenland ice core dataset. While the polar regions share many temperature change similarities, their warming/cooling phases occur during different years/decades with different amplitude - i.e., narrowly speaking, perfect synchronization of polar climates does not exist.
First, a generic wind stress definition is in order.
surface roughness (i.e., turbulence) as measured by satellite technology, is
referred to as 'wind stress' in climate models. In plain-speak, it is sea surface turbulence, obviously
driven by wind speed and direction, in addition to being impacted by atmospheric density/pressures, sea surface
temperatures, sea buoyancy and currents. Wind stress affects the air-sea heat exchange,
as well as the mixing of carbon/heat stored in the deeper parts of oceans. Wind
stress also has impacts on cloud cover, ocean current circulations and sea ice
In essence, wind stress is a powerful and critical elemental
influence on the world's climate. Thus, to forecast future climate conditions
with any sort of accuracy, it is absolutely necessary to be able to accurately simulate
As this latest peer reviewed scientific research reveals,
all climate "experts" and the IPCC's climate models remain unable to
accurately simulate wind stress on their massively expensive, sophisticated,
complex computer models.
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.
New research discovers ancient tree stumps that existed under an Alaskan glacier for thousands of years.
The retreating glacier confirms that climate temperatures were much warmer from at least the Minoan period to the Medieval era.
At some point, the climate became cooler and the actual trees were snapped at the stump level, then buried in the glacier's ice for centuries. Finally, the stumps were revealed as the climate returned to warmer temperatures in the rebound from the Little Ice Age.
This actual climate evidence is corroborated by the empirical ice core dataset from Greenland. As the ice core empirical evidence depicts, the ancient periods of the Minoans, Romans and the Medieval era were warmer than the present.
This Greenland evidence also reveals that temperatures have been in an overall cooling phase for the last some 3,500 years, which eventually led to the global glaciers' growth that ultimately would bury trees and forests, such as Alaska's Mendenhall glacier described in this article.
This new research adds to the mountain of empirical evidence and studies that refutes the IPCC's claim that modern temperatures (i.e., global warming) are "unprecedented".
Hmmm...the IPCC climate "science" always seems to be contradicted by those stubborn facts, no?
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 prediction failure rate of the IPCC and global warming alarmists has simply been astounding.
It is highly certain, at least a 95% certainty, that there has never been an organization so inept at predictions.
The latest prediction failure is one that states that as the earth warms, the world's peatlands would release their sequestered CO2. This release would then unleash a climate positive feedback, thus warming the world even further.
As this new study discovered, per the empirical evidence, as the earth warmed, even more CO2 was sequestered in the peatlands - the direct opposite of the IPCC alarmist community prediction. Absolutely zilch positve feedback took place
In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)
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.
Al Gore has often revealed a fundamental dishonesty about catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters. His fantasies have an unfortunate high correlation with absurd disaster movies.
Recently, he became the laughing stock in the science community with his bogus claim of a new hurricane 'Category 6' measurement being added.
That claim was quickly debunked, and now the new IPCC report (AR5) has essentially debunked most of the hysterical climate disaster claims made by Gore et al.
Per climate scientist Judith Curry's analysis of the IPCC's new AR5 report and confirming what others have found:
"But the real issue is this. The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).
The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here). The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century. These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW."
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.
As the actual climate truths and realities are finally being reported by the world's press (Der Spiegel, The Financial Times, etc.), the UN's global warming chief alarmist continues with delusional denial.
Since the UN's IPCC is a political bureaucracy, the political agenda takes precedence over empirical evidence and science objectivity.
·"The IPCC is, first and foremost, a UN bureaucracy. Since it is the nature of bureaucracies to pursue their own agendas, science has never been the driving force at the IPCC."
Pachauri's IPCC has literally become the anti-science, denial machine.....providing more proof to a new generation that the United Nations is not to be trusted, ever.
Simply put, the UN has always been about politics and bureaucracy, 24/7, not objective, empirical science.
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 Guardian has literally been at the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated, fear-mongering meme that the current CO2 "caused" global warming was rapidly accelerating and dangerous to civilization's survival.
As the adjacent suggests, The Guardian is finally coming clean with its readers and admitting that global warming is not really happening and a serious debate is presently taking place as to why. Good.
The Guardian joins an ever growing list of mainstream press outlets and pro-alarmist warming web sites making the same forced admission - essentially, that global warming went AWOL.....ergo, it's not dangerous.
A partial list includes:
The New York Times, the BBC, NPR, The Economist, ClimateCentral
"The 5-year mean global temperature has
been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability
and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." - NASA Scientist,
"In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just
0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero.
This is a serious scientific problem..." - Scientist/Meteorologist Hans
Independent , July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a
pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially
over the last 10 to 15 years,” - Reading University, Scientist Rowan Sutton
This 'epic fail' is especially embarrassing since it is entirely due to the mainstream journalists doing nothing more than 'press release' science. Instead, if they analyzed the empirical evidence the way skeptical bloggers do, then the embarrassment would likely be less acute, or not even exist.
There is no disagreement that the IPCC climate models have been spectacularly wrong over the last 15+ years of zero global warming - even the IPCC admits that, as the adjacent graph attests.
To make matters worse for climate science credibility, it's now revealed that the IPCC's new climate report claim of "95% certainty" has absolutely zero statistical / mathematical support.
"First of all, the figure 95% isn't really calculated in any way. It's literally pulled out of the air. The gullible audience of the IPCC is supposed to believe that the IPCC members are shamans with supernatural skills and if they vote about and approve a figure they randomly invent, it's a deep and accurate truth one should worship.".....
Obviously, the IPCC has not learned from their past egregious lapses in scientific judgment.
It is with our 99% certainty that hard-science scientists would agree that the IPCC's "95%" claim is entirely non-statistical flim flam, which the average person would be mislead by.
The bogus "unprecedented" modern warming claims by the IPCC and catastrophic global warming 'hystericals' takes another body blow - newly released Arctic region empirical evidence (from Svalbard) confirms that Medieval Period was robustly warmer than the world-ending, hypothetical CO2-induced modern warming feared by alarmists
The Climate Audit blog has another article regarding the amazing "scientific" attitudes/methods of paleo-climate "scientists" who embrace the IPCC's left-green-alarmist propaganda.
The 'CA' article includes the adjacent temperature reconstruction chart of an Arctic region, spanning the time period of 800AD to 1997AD.
Clearly, the Medieval Period was significantly warmer than the recent modern warming. The MWP climate warmth took place during an era of low atmospheric CO2 levels and minuscule human CO2 emissions. The evidence reveals the extended, unprecedented polar temperatures experienced prior to the Little Ice Age cooling.
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 220.127.116.11.2, 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.
The IPCC's "consensus agenda" has produced a lot of non-scientific climate garbage over its history - new Antarctica study debunks the claim that the Little Ice Age was non-global and restricted only to the Northern Hemisphere - another IPCC 'factlesstoid' has became official 'toast' for the anti-science ash bin file
Read here. The U.S. has a research station located at the WAIS divide where scientists associated with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography conducted an analysis to determine the Little Ice Age impact on the southern polar region.
"The authors (Orsi et al.) write that "the Northern Hemisphere experienced a widespread cooling from about 1400 to 1850 C.E., often referred to as the Little Ice Age (hereafter LIA)," which they describe as "the latest of a series of centennial scale oscillations in the climate,"...three researchers, all from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, report determining that "the WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800 C.E.," and they say that "the temperature in the time period 1400-1800 C.E." - which meshes well with the chronology of the LIA in the Northern Hemisphere - "was on average 0.52 ± 0.28°C colder than the last 100-year average."...stating that their result "is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing..." [Anais J. Orsi, Bruce D. Cornuelle, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus] 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
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.
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.
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 recent evidence is overwhelming that climate models are completely ineffective at predicting global temperatures, and newer research confirms they have serious problems properly simulating major component/regions of the globe's environment
(click image to enlarge)
Read here. New research on the accuracy of climate models regarding the modeling of the Southern Ocean region reveals major issues.
The Weijer et al. team identified the following concerns:
"The nine researchers state that "the CCSM4 has varying degrees of accuracy in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Ocean when compared with observations," some of which we list as follows: (1) "the seasonally ice-covered regions are mildly colder (ΔSST > -2°C) than observations," (2) "sea ice extent is significantly larger than observed," (3) "north of the seasonal ice edge, there is a strong (-4°C < ΔSST < -1°C) cold bias in the entire Pacific sector south of 50°S and in the western Australian-Antarctic Basin," (4) "positive biases (1° < ΔSST < 4°C) are found in the Indian and Atlantic sectors of the Southern Ocean," (5) "significant differences are found in the Indian and Pacific sectors north of the ACC, with the CCSM4 model being too cold (< -2°C) and fresh (<-0.3 psu)," (6) "AABW adjacent to the Antarctic continent is too dense," (7) "North Atlantic Deep Water is too salty (>0.2 psu)," (8) "in the Indian and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean, north of 50°S and below 3000 meters, the too-salty AABW penetrates northward, resulting in a denser-than-observed abyssal ocean in CCSM4," (9) "the model underestimates the depth of the deep winter mixed layers in the Indian and eastern Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean north of the ACC," (10) "in the southern Tasman Sea and along the eastern Indian Ocean boundary ... the model mixed layer depth is deeper than observed by more than 400 meters," (11) "in all sectors of the Southern Ocean, Model CFC-11 concentrations in the lower thermocline and intermediate waters are lower than observed," (12) "model CFC-11 concentrations in the deep ocean (below 2000 meters) are lower than observed in the basins adjacent to the Antarctic continent," (13) "model surface CFC-11 concentrations are higher than observed," (14) "the production of overflow waters in the Ross Sea is too low by about a factor of 2 relative to the limited observations," (15) "the depth at which the product water settles was also shown to be too shallow by about a factor of 2," (16) "the subtropical gyre of the South Atlantic is too strong by almost a factor of 2, associated with a strong bias in the wind stress," (17) the mean position of the BMC is too far south in the CCSM4," and (18) "the model variability in the position of the BMC is significantly less than observations."
[Wilbert Weijer, Bernadette M. Sloyan, Mathew E. Maltrud, Nicole Jeffery, Matthew W. Hecht, Corinne A. Hartin, Erik van Sebille, Ilana Wainer, Laura Landrum 2012: Journal of Climate]
Conclusions: The IPCC climate models can't simulate the reality of observed climate conditions. Climate models and computer simulations are incapable of producing credible climate predictions and forecasts due to the lack of understanding that scientists have about all the interactions within the climate system.
The IPCC's (and NASA's) CO2-centric climate models are completely unable to predict global temperatures with any degree of accuracy - scientists now confirm that increases in atmospheric CO2 actually follow increases in global temperatures, which is opposite of what climate models assume
Read here. It is common knowledge that global temperatures have not increased over the last 15 years despite massive new amounts of human CO2 emissions. And it is well known that the IPCC climate "experts" have been massively befuddled by this.
The current global climate models are dominated by the the greenhouse gas CO2 input. As the IPCC explains, their models can't accurately predict temperatures without knowing the atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course, recent experience clearly demonstrates the lack of models' temperature predictive skill even when the levels of CO2 are known.
It is now obvious that the climate models' assumption that CO2 levels dictate global warming/cooling is seriously amiss.
The European team of Humlum et al. has examined both the CO2 and temperature datasets and has determined that temperature changes actually occur before the corresponding CO2 level change. This is depicted in the adjacent chart of dataset plots.
"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures." [Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim 2012: Global and Planetary Change] Scientist Ole Humlum's climate web site
Conclusions: The lack of predictive skill of the IPCC's climate models is likely due to their being dominated by atmospheric CO2 level inputs (CO2-centric). The actual empirical evidence indicates that changing CO2 levels are more a result of global temperature changes than changes in human CO2 emissions.
The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
IPCC climate doomsday advocates predict all sorts of calamitous, extreme climate change events from human CO2 emissions that seemingly fail to materialize - the lack of increased heavy precipitation events across the U.S. is another one of those failed predictions
Read here. Climate scientists again reviewed the empirical weather evidence to determine if there has been a surge of heavy precipitation events, as predicted by the IPCC and its climate models.
Per the IPCC and its climate doomsday acolytes, human CO2 emissions causes increased warming that causes greater water evaporation, which in turn will increase the frequency and volume of rainfall incidents. Obviously, the increase in heavy rainfall would then likely lead to an increase in flooding disaster incidents. The IPCC's climate models have been programmed to follow that assumption.
Yet when researchers actually check the climate model predictions against weather reality, the IPCC models are rarely correct. Mahajan et al. just determined that to be the case for the IPCC's heavy rainfall prediction.
"Noting that "extreme events of precipitation have a potential for impacting our social and economic activities,"...state that it is "essential to determine if there has been a systematic change in the extremes over the past years and what awaits us in the future owing to global warming," especially in light of the fact that "climate model projection studies suggest that intense precipitation would be on the rise as global temperatures increase due to increased greenhouse gas forcings in the future..."trends in monthly heavy precipitation, defined by a return period of one year, are assessed for statistical significance in observations and Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations over the contiguous United States...report that trends estimated from the two data sources they employed "straddle the margin of statistical significance, and hence a definitive answer to the question of increasing trend of heavy precipitation over the US cannot be arrived at by looking at observational data." And with nearly half (9 out of 20) of the GCMs employed in their study predicting trends that are "significantly different from the observations," they are forced to conclude that "the GCMs are not yet fully capable of simulating extremes of precipitation at a regional level,"" [Salil Mahajan, Gerald R. North, R. Saravanan, Marc G. Genton 2012: Climate Dynamics]
Conclusion: Human CO2 emissions, and the supposed global warming, are not causing an increase in heavy precipitation events across the U.S. as predicted. The IPCC's climate models again fail a crucial test when their output is compared to actual weather reality.