The Democrats are now pursuing a media propaganda strategy that purposefully misleads the American public with #hysterical claims about climate change.
The propaganda represents a 'truth-crisis' that has no basis in reference to empirical evidence.
Joe Bastardi, who has some 35 years of weather/climate forecasting at prominent organizations, provides the adjacent climate evidence that clearly debunks the cult-like nonsense about "disastrous" climate change impacts.
Top-Left: Global warming has not caused permanent droughts in the U.S. that are claimed by alarmists.
Top-Right: Snow coverage is actually increasing across the N. Hemisphere contrary to doomsday #experts."
Bottom-Left: Occurrences of violent tornadoes in the U.S. have dropped significantly since 1954.
Bottom-Right: Opposite of the Democrats' propaganda, both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes has declines in total contrast to the UN's and official climate agencies have predicted.
Although the climate change fear-mongering by the Democrats is required to justify their proposed socialist 'Green New Deal', in reality, the climate crisis does not exist.
(Note: In order to bring the climate-truth to U.S. citizens, please share with friends, relatives, and associates. And using Twitter: #tcot @POTUS @HouseGOP @SenateGOP @Sen_JoeManchin @RepFletcher)
The failure of the climate "experts" to accurately predict short or long-term has been well documented in the past.
And this article points to the latest examples of such failure, which the #Dems and #Green #Socialists will again deny, despite the scientific empirical evidence. (That is what is called science denial.)
The climate prediction failure stream will continue until the point when the "science experts" finally realize that natural climate processes are the significant primary drivers of climate change and not the trace gas CO2.
Ad nauseam, the global warming and climate change alarmists tell the masses that the world will soon end - maybe in 12 years - due to such things as a global starvation event caused by droughts from human CO2. The actual scientific facts do not support this level of hysteria.
As this climate-alarmism skeptic reports, even the somewhat hysterical NOAA climate site displays real evidence that completely undercuts the notion that we are now experiencing the "disastrous" consequences of excessive amounts of the SUV CO2 trace gas molecule.
As most are aware, the Washington Post (WaPo) has become known as a major purveyor of climate fear mongering propaganda.
And this recent article is a perfect example of their predilection to do so, especially in regards to human CO2 emissions and the very speculative catastrophic global warming climate change said emissions will have.
But, if growing human-based CO2 emissions are the primary cause of disastrous climate change, why aren't they the primary cause for changes in atmospheric CO2 levels? (more on that later.)
Below is a quote from this article that exemplifies the propaganda that the world needs to drastically cut global emissions or ELSE.
“We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change,” United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said..."It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation,” he said. “Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption.”
The article is mostly void of any facts but certainly has plenty of fringe green activist estimates, projections, speculations, and "expert" opinions masquerading as facts. Observed empirical climate evidence was not a mainstay of the article.
One of their key "facts" presented at the beginning of the article is that global emissions for 2018 are projected to be 2.7% larger than 2017. Certainly sounds like an authoritative scientific fact until one reads much later in the article that maybe the 2018 emissions could be a much smaller global increase of only 1.8%.
Then again, maybe the final number will be +1.5% or maybe even +1.2%. Truth be told, no one knows for sure what the real number is at this time, although a more accurate number will likely be known by mid-2019.
Of course, the WaPo hopes that readers will walk away from this article with the thought that the estimated CO2 emission growth will lead to much higher CO2 atmospheric levels, thus resulting in the Earth suffering "calamitous" global warming outcomes.
Their hope is that readers will simply believe and not bother to check or question the lack of factual evidence supporting the underlying causation assumption.
When one does check the empirical evidence for the impact of annual CO2 emissions change on atmospheric CO2 levels an obvious disconnect becomes apparent - there is no significant impact of a specific percent increase in CO2 emissions and a subsequent percent increase in CO2 atmospheric levels (ppm).
In fact, as the above chart reveals, the correlation between the annual % increase of CO2 emissions and annual % rise of CO2 atmospheric levels is a ridiculously low with a r2 of +0.002. That is basically zero over the 53-year time span from 1966 through 2018 (assuming the WaPo 2018 estimate of 2.7% is correct).
The chart also depicts a declining linear trend for CO2 emissions while there is a slight increasing trend for CO2 levels, which is another indication that a positive correlation relationship between human emissions and CO2 levels is rather suspect.
For the WaPo's climate fear mongering apostles and recent converts, the lack of correlation seriously undercuts their faith in the 'CO2 Control Knob' hypothesis of climate change: the dogmatic faith that government bureaucrats can just turn a dial knob that decreases CO2 emissions by a certain percentage; the result being that atmospheric CO2 levels will respond by a certain lower percentage increase; and thus the desired climate result being less global warming.
If the "control knob" on CO2 emissions does not correlate at all with atmospheric CO2 levels, it's not very likely to correlate well with a specific percentage change in global temps.
Another way to examine the same datasets is plotting the annual changes of human emission CO2 tonnes versus the annual change in CO2 atmospheric levels (ppm). Again, the correlation might as well be zero due to an r2 of +0.041. (see below)
Again, how can this be if the control knob hypothesis relies on a strong change relationship between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels?
The empirical evidence does not lie, but since it is inconvenient, WaPo "journalists" just make it go away no matter the serious consequences. Just another case of those hated stubborn facts.
Conclusion: Bad journalism combined with bad science will kill democracy from the baseless fear mongering.
Research studies and actual climate change observations continue to confirm Trump's decision to pooh-pooh the alarmism and doomsday fears of both Democrats and the GOP-elites' never-Trumpers.
Adding to their joint misery is fact that Trump's energy policies are reducing U.S. CO2 emissions faster than their favored major country signatories of the UN's globalist Paris and Kyoto climate initiatives.
Empirical evidence review: It has now been 30 years since the former chief NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, unleashed his climate apocalypse scenarios on the public in 1988 ... looking back, does the empirical evidence support the fears of "unprecedented" warming?
It has long been common knowledge among both scientists and laypeople that the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended during the mid-1800s. In fact, from January 1850 through January 1988, the world had already warmed over 1 degree Celsius.
And it was in 1988 that James Hansen decided to present the case that this slow warming since the LIA was soon to become "unprecedented" due to CO2 emissions, thus causing untold climate chaos - i.e. boiling oceans, droughts, famines, Manhattan Island flooding along with other coastal regions, Earth turning into the next Venus, and etc.
Factually, the world has continued to warm since 1988, but is it "unprecedented" versus the climate warming of pre-1988?
It's not enough simply to claim the world is warmer, more important is to determine if temperatures changes are larger than ever.
To determine if today's global warming deserves to be considered unprecedented, an analysis of 30-year (360-month) climate temperature changes would be an effective means.
Using the gold-standard surface temperature record dataset, the HadCRUT4.6 global anomalies stretch back all the way to 1850.
We know from that dataset that the modern 30-year climate temperature change was +0.29ºC of warming at the end of February 2018. To clarify, that is the temperature warming change from February 1988 through February 2018.
That +0.29°C temperature since 1988 change took place in a global climate context that included not only the impact of multiple powerful El Niños, but also an atmosphere that was infused from 1989-2016 with over 50% of the total human CO2 emissions (metric tonnes) emitted since 1850.
Yet, despite all those CO2 emissions over the last 30 years, as the adjacent table reveals, there are 28 previous 30-year changes all ending in the month of February that exceed the "unprecedented" the most +0.29°C change.
All 28 of those 30-year temperature changes took place before the additional 50% of all CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.
By expanding the analysis to include all 12 months - not just the month February alone - there have been 247 monthly instances prior to 1988 when long-term the 30-year global temperature warming change exceeded that for February 2018.
In contrast to the above, the 30-year change in CO2 ppm as of February 2018 significantly exceeds all 30-year CO2 changes prior to 1988 without fail.
As an aside, in regards to the short-term, the 12-month global temperature change was a minus -0.32°C for the month-end of February 2018.
Conclusions:
True: The world has warmed since 1988 as the global temperature dataset establishes.
But, per the same empirical evidence, the current modern warming, as represented by 30-year temperature increases, is not in the least extreme, unusual, or unprecedented.
Prior to the additional 50% of total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions being added to the world's biosphere, global warming change easily matched or exceeded that experienced since 1988 - the year of NASA's James Hansen's predictions of climate apocalypse from human CO2.
Based on all the the gold-standard temperature measurements that the HadCRUT dataset provides, it is evident that periods of exceptional global warming changes (and the recent cooling temp changes) are more likely driven by natural forces than the ever-increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.
Note: Excel used to calculate 30-year temperature changes from the HadCRUT global land/sea dataset of temperature anomalies and past CO2 data (links found here). Left column of table are months of February and associated year; right column of table are the 30-year changes in temperature anomalies. Only chose to show the sub-list of February examples instead of all months, which was comprised of 247 in total.
The 1997-1998 El Niño versus the 2015-2016 event. How do they differ? How are they similar? The takeaway?
Now that the global HadCRUT4.6 dataset is available for February 2018, it is possible to examine a 4-year period for both El Niños, including the 'pre' and 'post' months for each.
These two major El Niño events do have some similarities as shown in their respective 4-year charts.
Besides the shared visual pattern of low-to-high-to-low similarity, the peak temperature for both periods came in the month of February (1998 & 2016).
For both, the beginning month (February 1996 and February 2014) were essentially identical: +0.32°C and +0.33°C.
And the end points displayed in the above charts are not dramatically different - there is only a +0.07°C gap between the higher February 2018 anomaly versus that of February 2000.
The small end point difference of only +0.07°C is rather surprising within the context of how much more peak warming took place in February 2016 (+1.11°C) versus February 1998 (+0.76°C).
Then there is a similarity of linear rate of warming for the 24 months leading up to the peak months of February 1998 and February 2016: +22.3°C per century versus +22.6°C, respectively.
Regarding the differences between the two phenomenons:
There is a large difference for the peak month anomaly of the respective Februaries (1998 & 2016). Indeed, a visually striking difference is apparent.
In addition, on average, the monthly anomalies of the 2014-2018 period are +0.35°C then for the 1996-2000 period. Visually, the entire curve for the later El Niño event has been shifted up.
With that said, when the anomalies for the 10-year period prior to February 1996 and February 2014 are compared, one finds that the later anomalies were, on average, +0.3°C higher than those of the earlier 10-year period.
Another difference is the overall warming trends exhibited during the two 4-year analysis periods. From February 1996 through February 2000, the warming rate is +3.6°C per century. The warming rate for the February 2014 through February 2018 is significantly lower at +0.72°C per century.
This substantially larger per century warming rate for the earlier event analysis period - ending in February 2000 - is rather unexpected given the typical mainstream headlines leading up to this last major El Niño.
Then there is the difference in how much the temperature anomaly has dropped since the peak month for each of these El Niños. For the 24-month period after the Feb. 1998 peak, the temperature anomaly dropped a -0.3°C. In contrast, the drop from the Feb. 2016 peak has been double the earlier period's - a drop of -0.6°C.
Finally, the deceleration of warming rates after the peak highs do differ but not excessively. For the 24-month span ending February 2000, the deceleration of warming from the February 1998 peak was a -18.81°C per century (i.e. cooling per century) versus a deceleration, from the 2016 peak, of -16.44°C per century ending February 2018.
The Takeaway?
There is no convincing evidence from the empirical temperature record to suggest that the differences/similarities are nothing more than the expected natural variation seen when comparing the two powerful natural climate/weather phenomenon.
There is no empirical evidence that higher CO2 levels resulted in the overall higher temp anomalies of the 2015-16 El Niño. With a monthly anomaly average being only +0.35°C higher, that is likely in the realm of natural variance.
As of yet, there is no empirical evidence that the powerful 2015-16 El Niño event resulted in any long-term climatic changes.
There is empirical evidence that this recent major El Niño temperature anomaly pattern of up/down and warming/cooling characteristics are similar to past natural El Niño events.
This NOAA article provides contextual evidence as to why the 2015-16 El Niño was so powerful.
The empirical evidence strongly indicates an inverse correlation between CO2 levels and deaths from climate.
The adjacent chart superimposes annual atmospheric CO2 levels onto a chart that Bjorn Lomborg produced on his Facebook page. H/T
Since 1920, while climate-related deaths have plummeted, the deaths from non-climate related natural events has essentially hovered in a narrow range.
Yet, from 1920-2017, the atmospheric CO2 levels has grown an exceptional amount at an exceptional speed. A growth that has primarily attributed to the modern industrial/consumer combustion of fossil fuels.
That is the undeniable empirical evidence that lays total waste to the anti-science beliefs and doomsday claims of celebrity-seeking individuals who populate Washington D.C., Hollywood, ivory towers, and etc.
It's just another example of 'elites' failing to connect the real science dots.
Simple Summary: The trace greenhouse gas CO2 should not be feared as some sort of death-machine unleashed by humans. Instead the empirical evidence suggests it is an indication of civilization advancement and the life-saving achievements it produces.
Per our prior article, an examination of the empirical evidence for atmospheric warming was done to determine if Earth had crossed the 'tipping point' red line. This article drills down further to look at specific data points.
The adjacent chart - using the same information as before - narrows the focus down to a few specific markers of both short-term and long-term global warming acceleration.
Besides showing the cumulative CO2 growth, this chart depicts the plots (pinkish circles sans the connecting curve lines) of the 12-month, 24-month, and 36-month rolling per century warming acceleration trends
[For those counting: the count of their respective calculated trend points are as follows: 459 calculated points; 447 calculated points; 435 calculated points.]
On the chart, the 12-month first and last calculated trend points are marked as red dots; for the 24-month first and last, the representation marks are the blue dots; and for the 36-month first and last, those are designated by the two bright green circles.
Clearly, despite the substantial increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from 1979 to 2018, all the ending acceleration trend points of February 2018 are actually lower than the very first trend points for each short-term period.
Moving on.
The chart's aqua colored trend line is constructed using the 240-month rolling calculated trends (the count of calculated trend points making up the aqua line is 231). The aqua colored triangles mark the first, last, and highest calculated warming trend points.
For the long-term, the empirical evidence confirms that the February 2018 acceleration trend of 1.17°C per century is lower than both the beginning trend value of 1.74°C and the highest trend value reached way back in April 2004 of 2.52°C per century.
One could surmise that this result is climate evidence of a long-term atmospheric negative feedback mechanism in play.
Conclusion: For a tipping point and/or runaway warming to be reached, and then survive, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis demands that the lower troposphere warms in a consistent and accelerating mode, due to the hypothetical positive atmospheric feedbacks supposedly produced from fossil fuel CO2 emissions. As this analysis substantiates what the prior article had found, the current climate "tipping point" claims and/or concerns are completely without empirical evidence merit or, if you prefer, categorically factless.
Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.
Every time there is a "hottest" day, a "warmest-than-ever" month, or an extended period of quickly rising global temps, there are many who instantly claim that the world has reached a runaway climate change condition, or a global warming tipping point, or a soon to be doomsday, a no-return cascade turning Earth into the next Venus.
Hyperbole or fact?
The adjacent graph is one that we have produced in the past. Every few months it is updated in the quest of finally identifying the no-return doomsday tipping point that so many celebrities, journalists, and politicians fear and speak of.
The graph contains simple plots exhibiting the constant linear growth of cumulative CO2 levels in the atmosphere and multiple temperature trends.
The per century trends plotted are derived from the gold-standard NASA satellite atmospheric - i.e., lower troposphere (LT) - temperature measurements. The measurements are produced by two organizations - RSS and UAH - and the graph's trend plots represent a 50/50 average of those RSS/UAH published datasets since 1979.
As the plots make abundantly clear, since the inception of satellite measurements, LT short-term temperature trends go up and then they go down. The LT temperatures regularly have an acceleration spike and then a subsequent deceleration spike follows.
These acceleration and deceleration trends obviously follow some sort of cyclical pattern that are completely divorced from the incessant growth of atmospheric CO2 and/or other human-based activities.
Those are the stubborn facts, with the end result being that nature totally trumps human influence in regards to climate.
Conclusion? And the "tipping point" remains nothing more than factless hyperbole.
Note: This analysis of the empirical data from January 1979 through 2018 is about the past, and it should not be interpreted as a future prediction of climate change/response. Excel was used to calculate and plot the multiple rolling/moving LT temperature trends and monthly CO2 cumulative totals.
The opinions on climate change from analysts, researchers, and academics continue to change as the evidence of global warming - or lack thereof - is presented.
This recent article reminds readers that global warming is not a 'global' phenomenon since many areas of the world exhibit cooling, as the adjacent image reveals.
Then there is this recent article that refers to a published peer-reviewed study by a group of climate scientists who have found the current land-based temperature measurement capabilities to be less than stellar and even unsatisfactory in many cases. The scientists go on to suggest an alternative measuring methodology being deployed globally that the U.S. has already developed.
Finally, there is this recent article indicating the forever changing "settled science" in regards to the predicted influence of CO2 on global warming. As the evidence grows that global warming has not been as great, nor as fast, as the climate models predicted, the experts (and the IPCC) have been continually forced to reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.
Conclusion? Much to the dismay of many, the actual "global warming" is having a significant impact on science in a way they did not want. It's just another case of those stubborn facts that so often plague the elites.
Or, to put it another way: climate doomsday is delayed for another millennium.
China is the 4th largest country in terms of geographical size and the largest in population size. Accordingly, human-induced climate change from greenhouse trace gases would be of major concern to China's leaders. So, what does a fact check reveal of China's modern climate change due to human Co2 emissions?
Frankly, little, if any, emission impact on present climate change based on new Chinese peer-reviewed research.
(click on charts to enlarge)
The chart on the left represents a 341-year proxy temperature reconstruction for the southwest region of China.
Clearly, unprecedented temperatures occurred during the mid to late 1700s. This record shows that modern temperatures, which supposedly have been influenced by human emissions, are yet to rival temperatures from much earlier periods.
Also, one can discern a cyclical pattern that the study's scientists attributed to nature climate oscillations - trace greenhouse gases do not explain this periodical climate pattern.
The chart on the right represents a 500-year streamflow analysis for a western region of China.
Again, a pattern of constant change, from low to high to low, appears to be due to natural climate variations. The late 20th and early 21st century observations seem remarkably similar to those in the distant past, suggesting that Co2 emissions are not a factor influencing streamflow.
Fact Check: As these two studies from China indicate, modern industrial/consumer emissions from fossil fuels are not a major component of climate change. This research adds to the huge compilation of prior peer-reviewed studies that confirm modern climate change is not out of the ordinary, and highly likely due to natural causes, not human-induced as speculated my many.
Early 20th century global warming climate change greater during a low atmospheric CO2 environment.
The CO2-centric global warming "theory" has serious issues, including:
==> 1. it can't be proven in the real world, it's simply not verifiable
==> 2. climate models using this theory as a foundational element have proven to be unreliable
==> 3. it can't account for the the wide variation in temperature levels and changes across the globe, whether the period is short-term or long-term.
And that's not even considering all the failed catastrophic predictions that the "theory" inspires in abundance, yet never seem to come about.
In regards to bullet point #3 above, two prior posts (here and here) provide the indisputable empirical evidence that CO2 growth has not produced a constant, runaway global warming acceleration - not even close.
Then there is the salient point that the September 2017 average monthly global temperature is similar to some observed during the 1997-99 period, as noted in this article.
Clearly, CO2 is not the powerful accelerant, nor determinant, that is going to overwhelm natural warming and cooling cycles as hypothesized.
Which leads to another observation about natural global warming and climate change: past empirical evidence from earlier in the 20th century confirms that Earth's natural climate oscillations can produce periods of significant temperature change increases that even exceed the most recent temperature climate change.
Case in point: September 1944 versus September 2017, as seen on the adjacent chart.
Certainly, there is no disagreement that in 1944 the atmospheric levels of CO2 were significantly lower (311 ppm) than now (407 ppm). The amount of yearly CO2 emissions per year prior to 1944 were a fraction of today's consumer/industrial annual production of emission tonnes.
Yet the earlier global temperature changes exceed the September 2017 measurements.
For example, as the chart depicts for the 240-month (20-yr) period ending September 2017, the global temperature change was +0.08°C. In other words, after 20 years of massive CO2 emissions that's all the global warming that took place.
In contrast, the 240-month (20-Yr) period ending September 1944 was a +0.58°C global temperature change - substantially greater than recent warming.
That +0.58°C warming over the earlier 20-year period was produced by natural climate change drivers, not CO2 emissions.
As the chart reveals, every single medium and long-term period ending at September 1944 had global warming changes that exceeded their respective spans ending in September 2017. (Although not shown on the chart, this was also true for the short-term periods of 1-Yr, 2-Yr, and 3-Yr.)
And, there are other earlier extended periods prior to the 1960's, where global temperature warming change is greater than relevant recent periods.
The science is settled?
Not very likely, since it is without question that this and other climate science empirical evidence does not support, nor validate, the foundational Arrhenius greenhouse global warming theory that dominates the consensus orthodoxy.
Simply stated, it's a dog theory that has gone dogmatic without a bone of evidence. And another admission to a collection of 'those stubborn facts.'
Note: Source of HadCRUT global temperature data. Excel was used to calculate/chart for the various periods of temperature change based on month endpoints of September 1944 and September 2017.
The 'Venus' prediction - quackery or a valid climate science prediction?
There are climate doomsday proponents and alleged "experts" who fear that Earth is warming so fast that it will soon reach hothouse Venus-like temperatures, primarily due to humans continuing global emissions of CO2, a trace greenhouse gas.
To summarize this alarmist position, the feared extreme global warming and climate change would result in the demise of all humans and civilization. More recent claims of similar outcomes, include: the '6th great mass extinction' and the one referred to as the 'human extinction'.
Indeed, Venus is quite uninhabitable for humans with surface and lower atmospheric temperatures in excess of 800°F (+400°C). This planet is an extreme hothouse that had a runaway warming tipping point in its past.
But.....do the scientific facts and latest empirical evidence indicate that sort of "runaway tipping point" and extreme warming fate is even remotely possible for Earth in the future?
(click on chart to enlarge)
As a starting point, the above chart plots the gold-standard satellite warming measurement trends of Earth's lower troposphere, and plots the cumulative CO2 increase, since 1979. (These are the rolling per century temperature trends by month.)
None of the current trends, as of the end of September 2017, reveal a significantly high acceleration of lower atmospheric warming that would indicate a Venus tipping point of runaway global warming is imminent, despite the growing amount of CO2.
From the chart, it is clear there are very abrupt changes in acceleration and deceleration of temperatures, which strongly suggest powerful natural climate factors are in the driver's seat, not human CO2 emissions. The chart depicts short-term warming trend peaks that correlate well with recent and prior El Niño warming periods.
Focusing just on the above chart's 12-month (bright red curve) and 24-month (bright blue) and 36-month (bright green) trends, one can visualize the quick shifts in atmospheric temperature direction, from warming to cooling and then back to warming.
Again, these abrupt trend changes are associated with known short-term natural climate forces.
(click on chart to enlarge)
The long-term 20-year acceleration shown alone in this above chart confirms that the short-term changes in acceleration/deceleration are somewhat reflected in the longer trends but with a much reduced variation - i.e. - a smaller trend range.
Instead of a huge trend range of +80 degrees per century acceleration or a -80 degrees per century acceleration, the 20-year trend variation is much narrower, from +0.5 to +2.5 degrees per century.
And this satellite 20-year trend evidence confirms that the longer temperature trend has actually declined since a March 2004 peak, indicating that its relationship with the steady growth trend of atmospheric CO2 is rather weak, at best. One could surmise it's more of an inverse relationship during this time span.
Or, one could surmise that this reflects the proven and much investigated 'pause' in global warming.
(click on chart to enlarge)
Going back again to shorter term trends, this above graph represents the moving 12-month trends over the critical 31 months for the last 2 major El Niños: 1998 and 2016. The 16-month mark is the peak 12-month trend for each event. Plus, each temperature trend plot includes the 15 months prior to the peak, and after the peak.
Based on the gold-standard empirical evidence, it can safely be said that the increased atmospheric CO2 levels of 2016 had little acceleration impact, if any, since the earlier period - at a much lower level CO2 - exhibited greater atmospheric temperature acceleration.
Fact Check Conclusion: Large increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, be they from natural or human sources, are not turning Earth into the next Venus. The prediction of a Venus-like runaway warming future is quackery.
In the scheme of important global priorities and concerns, the accelerated warming of Earth due to CO2 emission should not even rank in a list of priorities, per the real empirical evidence.
(It truly does make one wonder why really smart people would be tempted to utter such anti-science 'Venus' nonsense. Or, why they choose to ignore the known empirical evidence and scientific research challenging the wrongheaded Gore orthodoxy.)
(click on chart to enlarge)
Okay, this one last chart to put the entire Venus vs. Earth comparison into proper context.
On an annual basis, Earth's lower troposphere (5km high) averages around -4.25°C. In contrast, the Venus lower troposphere (5km) temp is around +430°C. The above chart reveals the gigantic difference in these temperature levels.
Obviously, Earth's LT temps are not accelerating to match the outlandish Venus temps, even after 30 years of large scale industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.
One reason that we are not becoming the next Venus is that its atmosphere is 96% CO2. In comparison, our atmosphere is less than one-tenth of 1% composed of CO2. And even if our CO2 levels doubled, it would still be less than one-tenth of 1% of the atmosphere.
The actual known laboratory physics indicates Earth's temps will only increase between 1-2°C after a CO2 doubling - not some 400+ degrees.
In addition, Venus is a lot closer to the sun and its rotation is 243 Earth days, not 24 hours - it is basically baking in the solar furnace all the time.
And Venus has an atmospheric pressure that is some 90 times greater than Earth's, which is going to create incredible hot temperatures on its own.
Simply stated: Earth will not turn into Venus unless a major catastrophic event (asteroid, comet, an alien 'tractor' beam weapon, etc.) changes Earth's position in the solar system.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, rolling month trends, the resultant per century trends, and to chart the dataset plots. Lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - an equal weighting monthly average dataset used in chart's plot; NOAA's atmospheric CO2 dataset. For Earth vs. Venus comparison: a 30yr baseline was calculated from this UAH file of daily Kelvin temps and then monthly UAH LT anomalies applied to result in absolute temps for each month from 1979. Venus 5km LT absolute temps found on this web page.
2017 saw the first major hurricanes strike the continental U.S in Texas and Florida in almost 12 years, with multiple Caribbean islands, including Puerto Rico, suffering major hurricane damage. Certainly hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria will be long remembered by residents of the respective devastated areas.
Although the lengthy span of no major hurricanes was quite unexpected and unusual for many weather observers, has that now somehow made the 2017 hurricane season 'unusual' and 'unprecedented' in the scientific context?
The factual answer to that is simple: 'no'.
The 2017 season has not been very exceptional when compared against the historical empirical evidence, as hurricane science expert, Philip Klotzbach, clearly documents - see the adjacent table images.
As the top table shows, so far the very busy 2017 season in the Atlantic basin does exceed the 1981-2010 median of various measurements; but the last 2 columns of the table depict a 2017 season (so far) that is not very 'unusual' or 'exceptional' when compared against the hurricane season activity records stretching back to 1851.
To summarize, the 2017 season in the Atlantic region is not even ranked among the top 5 historically in 6 of 7 key metrics (so far) through mid-October.
In the bottom table, Klotzbach depicts the entire Northern Hemisphere's 2017 tropical cyclone activity versus the activity for the 1981-2010 period.
Two words to describe the 2017 Northern Hemisphere's season in historical context: rather mundane.
"While Atlantic has obviously had very active #hurricane season, N. Hemisphere has experienced average TC activity by most metrics to date."
Unfortunately, despite this clear empirical evidence, the climate change and global warming doomsday alarmists attempt to portray the 2017 season as a sign of CO2-induced climate catastrophe - and that is not being well accepted by the actual hurricane experts (here, here, here) who have been on the front lines of tropical cyclone activity and impact research.
It's another case of 'those stubborn facts' deflating the typical over-the-top hyperbole and exaggerations from 'greens' who represent the extreme loons and left-wing fringe anti-science ignorance and/or propaganda.
Of course, this not the final word on the 2017 season. It is not over and could make those above 'so-fars' quite irrelevant.
As the previous article laid out (see article's chart), the globe warmed substantially during the latest El Niño phase of ENSO (see past ENSO history).
But after a natural warming ENSO 'spike,' such as the one covering the 2015-2016 period, Earth's frequent natural reaction is to enter a cooling phase, which this time apparently commenced after the peak in February 2016.
The adjacent chart reveals the exact same lower troposphere (LT) warming and cooling spikes as the prior chart, but using a different plotting style.
This different style does not depict as much detail regarding the actual monthly temperatures as the earlier chart did. This style chart leaves a stronger impression that monthly global warming has been on a continuous upswing, instead of the actual frequent ups/downs of monthly climate temperature change.
For this chart, we changed from a simple 12-month average for both CO2 and temperatures to a 36-month average for both. In addition, a linear temperature trend curve (see dashed maroon line) has been added.
The Facts:
#1. As in the prior article, this chart indicates a long-term global warming trend of 1.07°C by 2100AD - this includes the most recent warming phase of ENSO. [Linear trends are not predictions - they have no predictive power since over the short-term they can change dramatically.]
#2. The chart's 36-month simple moving average (red curve) of LT temperatures indicates an extended pause - i.e. the 'Hiatus' - in overall global warming, from approximately mid-1999 to mid-2015.
#3. The chart's CO2 36-month moving average of ppm levels reveals a continuous linear growth status, whereas the 36-month satellite temp average is anything but.
Conclusions/Assessments:
The datasets used for this chart and the prior article's chart are exactly the same. However, the plot styles are different providing a different context of the cooling/warming of global temperatures. The different context is valuable and there will be future 'C3' charts depicting different plot styles (providing additional context for the reader) using the same dataset and sub-datasets.
This chart's linear trend is exactly the same: a trend that indicates a +1.07°C warming by 2100AD - a rather non-catastrophic warming trend that will likely produce more climate change benefit for the world than harm.
The recent weak scientific attempts to disappear the existence of the sideways movement of overall global warming is clearly debunked by the actual 12 and 36-month averages of LT temperatures from 1999-2015. The real empirical evidence confirms the 'Pause.'
This chart also shows that CO2 levels are not driving the considerable spikes of warming and cooling that take place - natural forces overwhelm any CO2 impact.
Additional global and regional warming/cooling temperature charts.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, trends, and to chart the dataset plots. Lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - an equal weighting monthly average dataset used in chart's plot; NOAA's atmospheric CO2 dataset.
The gold-standard for climate science temperature measurements is produced by the advanced, 24/7 monitoring accomplished by orbiting satellites.
Unlike the deployed small number of geographically-sparse surface thermometers, satellites essentially cover the entire world on a continuous basis.
And unlike earthly thermometers, which more often than not reside within known hot-spots, such as metro airports and urban heat sinks of concrete, asphalt and steel, satellite measurements are not affected by human structures, not by transit activities, not by industrial production, and not by power generation.
Satellites are the only available technology scientists have that truly measure temperatures in a global fashion, without all the inherent biases influencing surface-based thermometers.
This unrivaled, sophisticated technology has been performing its empirical measurement duties over the last 38 full years, which the adjacent chart is a plot of. Each month's temperature average is shown by an orange circle (each circle is the average of the two major lower troposphere (LT) temperature satellite datasets - RSS and UAH). The red curve is a moving 12-month simple average of the monthly datapoints.
In addition, the chart includes a plot of NOAA's monthly atmospheric CO2 level (see black dots) and its moving 12-month simple average (grey curve with arrowhead).
The Facts:
#1. As measured, the monthly CO2 levels continue to steadily increase at a linear rate, which if maintained, will almost reach an atmospheric level of 555ppm by 2100AD.
#2. As measured, the temperature trend for the last 38 years (starting with January 1979) indicates an increase of 1.07°C by 2100AD, if that trend is maintained.
#3. As measured, the global average temperatures sporadically gyrate up/down, which the red curve clearly depicts.
#4. As measured, there are very obvious significant warming/cooling spikes that took place in the recent past.
#5. As measured, global LT temperatures spiked warmer during the 2015-2016 period, achieving the highest recorded temperature during February 2016, exceeding the previous high from April 1998 by some +0.12°C. March 2016 was the only other month exceeding the April 1998 measurement (approximately by+0.005°C).
#6. As measured, global temperatures typically spike down after a strong spike up.
#7. As measured, LT global temperatures have declined considerably from the February 2016 high to the year's low of December 2016 - an average global temperature that is below both the December 1987 and December 1998 global temperatures (see magenta-tinted circles), respectively 29 and 18 years ago.
#8. As measured, this gold-standard empirical evidence reveals that only 12% of global LT temperature datapoints since December 1987 were higher.
#9. As measured, the combined RSS and UAH dataset averages show an extended pause in the overall warming - i.e. the hiatus - that stretched across a span from about 1999 to the beginning of 2015.
Conclusions/Assessments:
The below points should be viewed as opinions, or if one wants to be fancy about it, conclusions and assessments. While they are opinions, the actual empirical evidence from the satellites - the climate science gold-standard - is quite supportive.
Global LT temperatures will continue to decline sporadically throughout 2017, which the satellite empirical evidence from the past 38 years (456 monthly measurements) suggests will be a normal/natural cooling reaction to the warming spike.
During the next 18 months, it can be expected that a low temperature point will be reached before a rebounding commences.
Despite the steady increase of CO2 emissions and levels, the natural oscillation phases known as El Niño and La Niña totally overwhelm any modest warming influence of this trace greenhouse gas.
Global LT temperature spikes, both up and down, are primarily due to major natural climate oscillations/cycles, plus natural phenomenons, such as volcano eruptions; temp spikes are not a result of steadily rising human CO2 emissions and/or atmospheric CO2 levels. The 2015-16 El Niño produced the highest temperature anomaly spike since satellite measurements began.
Significant global absolute LT temperature warming, as of December 2016, has not taken place since December 1987. There indeed have been multiple 'hot' and 'cold' years in between these two Decembers but the latest December absolute temperature is still lower than that of December 1987.
Global LT temperatures are highly unlikely to achieve a 3 to 6 degree increase by 2100AD that many consensus experts speculate will happen.
The identified modest warning trend from modern satellite measurements supports the historical evidence and anecdotal recordings that a modest warming has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The orthodox anthropogenic hypothesis of catastrophic global warming that much of high-level governmental policy-making is based on, is for all practical purposes, invalidated.
Regarding that last point, consensus climate science has proposed a hypothesis on the claim that climate physics dictates that rising atmospheric CO2 levels will warm the atmosphere substantially, thus causing a positive feedback loop, which will then continuously accelerate warming until a tipping point of runaway temperatures take place, turning Earth into the next Venus. This one simple sentence is a nutshell summation of the supposed complex climate physics of "dangerous" global warming that has actually been tested.
The result of that 38-year long real test is that the gold-standard satellite empirical evidence clearly invalidates this hypothesis of positive feedback(s) leading to runaway, catastrophic warming.
Fortunately for the world and its populace, the climate science dogmatic consensus is robustly without any scientific empirical merit. It may indeed get warmer but the catastrophic predictions are not connected to science reality.
Additional global and regional warming/cooling temperature charts.
Note: Excel used to calculate averages, trends, and to chart the dataset plots.
UK's Daily Mail published article that discusses global warming collapse, based on latest empirical evidence being reported by the Met Office Hadley Centre.....the global temperatures have dropped hugely since the 2015-2016 El Nino peak...
The global temperature chart image on the left is from the Daily Mail.
The recent substantial drop in world temperatures is evident. Clearly, the temperature spike caused by the recent El Nino is in the process of being reversed, and quickly with some gusto.
The image on the right represents a plot multiple global per century temperature trends based on the same UK global anomaly dataset used by the Daily Mail to plot absolute temps. The blue 1-year (12-month) trends show the dramatic global warming trend reversal over the most recent months - from a peak in March 2016 to what now amounts to being a significant cooling trend by October 2016.
The other plotted trends for longer periods will eventually follow the direction of the 1-year trend as the slide of future global temperatures from the peak continues.
A note of interest is the fact that none of the different period warming trends plotted exceeded those reached in the past during periods of lower atmospheric CO2. Despite this incredibly powerful El Nino taking place during modern history's period of the highest CO2 levels recorded, the 2015/16 warming trends generated never surpassed those experienced in the past.
It would seem, despite the extreme denial of most anti-CO2 activists and UN bureaucrats, that the climate has always changed, frequently making dramatic shifts.
Even producing big shifts prior to the major morphing to a greenhouse gas emitting industrial/consumer society.
Despite the immense treasure of climate change empirical and anecdotal evidence of time past compiled by dedicated researchers, scientists are still conducting new research to delineate the scope and breadth of past changes.
This latest research, done by a group of European scientists, focused on the Northern Hemisphere's hydroclimatology responses to temperature change over 12 centuries. Their findings included:
"...report that (1,2) "proxy evidence does not support the tendency in simulations for wet regions to become wetter and dry regions drier in a warmer climate," that (3) their "hydroclimate reconstruction does not support a general unprecedented intensification of the hydrological cycle in the twentieth century, associated with both more extreme wet and dry conditions, as simulated by an ensemble of models," and that (4) "this finding is in line with recent analyses of instrumental data reporting limited evidence for an intensification of wet and dry anomalies under current global warming,"." Nature 532: 10.1038/nature17418.
In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).
Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions - and Exxon - are not to blame.
Recently, two science articles based on the latest research belies the notion, held by global warming alarmist proponents, that climate change is only a result of modern human CO2 emissions.
As skeptics of catastrophic global warming have long advised, climate change is primarily a result of natural forces that are not dependent on anthropogenic influences.
An example of this earthly natural climate change is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which had serious repercussions for many, including the Mongol invaders who terrorized Europe.
Researchers now believe that the underlying cause of the mysterious retreat by the Mongol invading forces of Hungary, during 1462 AD, was the bad weather - likely induced by the natural climate change associated with the LIA onset. Turns out the bad weather of climate change significantly reduced food and nutrition for the Horde's steeds and made for a very muddy terrain to battle on.
And then there is the new research from another planet in the solar system that proves natural climate change is not only a terrestrial phenomenon.
Research derived from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has established that the Mars ice age is in the process of ending due to a natural global warming for that planet.
In combination, these two research efforts add to the massive amount of scientific evidence that climate change is always occurring; and, most definitely does not require human consumer/industrial greenhouse gases to produce significant impacts on planetary environments and those associated civilizations.
This article discusses the severe forest fire that is currently happening in the Fort McMurray area of Canada, which the article's author takes issue with those claiming the fire is due to climate change from human activities - i.e. human CO2 emissions, etc.
Claims that specific fires (and forest and wildfires overall) are due to human greenhouse gases have routinely been made since the 1988 testimony of NASA's top climate scientist, James Hansen, predicted that rapid and accelerating warming from GHG emissions would cause more severe and frequent weather events.
As a result of this Congressional testimony, the "consensus" climate experts then predicted that the "dangerous" human-caused warming would produce a significant trend increase of wildfires, especially in the northern hemisphere's boreal forests.
Although the globe has warmed since 1988 (not rapid, nor accelerating, see here and here), the trend for Canadian boreal forest fires has been the opposite of that predicted over the 27 years after the Hansen 1988 testimony.
The adjacent charts plots the number of Canadian forest fires and hectares burned. Clearly, the trends are declining, which suggests an inverse relationship with the level of atmospheric CO2 (ppm CO2 is the chart's right axis).
Despite those climate "experts" failed prognostications, the recent irrefutable empirical evidence indicates that the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions are producing a greener and healthier biosphere, which actually may be more resistant to wildfires.
Additional forest fire articles of the past [tip: then use browser Cntrl-F function to do search on word 'forest' to find forest fire news articles on that page].
Note: Canadian forest fire statistics source; Excel used to plot annual fire statistics and linear trends.
The unsubstantiated claim has been that human CO2-induced climate change was (and is) producing dramatic changes in precipitation levels across the world.
But is it true?
A research effort was undertaken to determine if indeed the evidence backed up the alarmist non-empirical claims/predictions.
"...report that "most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change," noting that "global changes in precipitation over the Earth's land mass excluding Antarctica relative to 1961-90 were estimated to be: -1.2±1.7, 2.6±2.5 and -5.4±8.1 percent per century for the periods 1850-2000, 1900-2000 and 1950-2000, respectively." ... "stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends," ... "deserts/jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns." ... "reasonable to conclude that some caution is warranted about claiming that large changes to global precipitation have occurred during the last 150 years."
Simply put, the exaggerated climate change claims of major disruption to rainfall/snow patterns are just that, exaggerations sans any empirical evidence. The evidence-based science is clear: Over the last 150 years, precipitation trends remain within normal variability.
The short version: NOAA's latest empirical evidence reveals that last 25 year period of global warming is not exceptional, nor unprecedented. Unexpectedly, NOAA's own evidence debunks their own global warming propaganda that they claim is fact.
Yes, the warming isn't exceptional but the irony certainly is.
NOAA is well known to aggressively push the misleading myth of a dangerous modern warming rate from CO2, and that this rapid warming can only be man-made, not a result of natural forces.
Yet its own temperature dataset proves past natural global warming rates of earlier periods are similar and as powerful.
And of course, NOAA always conveniently forgets about the substantial warming and climate change periods of the historical and geological past, which far exceed what NOAA has reported over the last 25 years.
Moving on to the long version of this analysis.....
(click on any chart to enlarge)
The long version: Unprecedented modern warming? A simple factcheck of NOAA's temp information proves otherwise.
With a multitude of politicos, greens, activists, pundits, journalists, and wildly uninformed celebrities jointly wringing their hands over 2015 being the hottest ever, it's beyond empirical doubt that the rate of the last 25 years of warming is not unique.
Yes, in a nutshell, it's warmer today than 25 years ago, but that's to be expected due to the 150+ year natural rebound in temperatures since the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
Putting aside the overused "hottest" adjective, does NOAA's empirical measurement prove that modern warming is significantly different than past natural warming? Have the last 25 years warmed a quantifiably greater amount than prior periods?
To the charts of NOAA empirical evidence to compare two 25-year climate periods of global warming.
Chart #1: For ease of comparison, the earlier 20th century monthly anomaly sub-dataset was offset so as to start at exactly the same anomaly point as the modern sub-dataset. When that is done, it is easier to visually match the similarities/differences of the two warming periods.
Despite their obvious differences in anomaly variation, these two distinct periods reflect similar outcomes over their respective 25 years. Even though the earlier 20th century period (1919 to 1943) experienced little in the way of consumer/industrial CO2 emissions, its monthly warming anomaly increase is almost a perfect match to the last 25 years, ending 2015.
The chart's fitted trends (2nd order polynomial) reveal the earlier period with a closing warming rate that is accelerating away from the modern fitted trend.
Chart #2 plots the calculated linear trends for both 25-year periods. The difference in 'per century' trends is rather minuscule, especially when considering the massive greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1950. Objectively, the small trend increase of +0.40 degrees per century over the last 25 years is well within known natural variation.
Clearly, any warming impact of CO2 emissions has barely surpassed the per century trend produced by natural climatic forces from 1919-1943. Based on this empirical evidence, a robust conclusion would be that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is exceptionally insignificant.
Chart #3 compares the 5-year average warming for each period, using the same starting anomaly point. From the start, the ‘Modern’ 5-yr average rises much faster; but in an exceptional (dare we say "unprecedented") spurt, the ‘Earlier’ period 5-yr average closes the gap to a mere +0.03 degree warming difference at the end of 25 years.
Based on that tiny difference, one can fairly surmise that the huge CO2 emissions production over the last 25 years has not distinguished itself as climatically significant versus natural variation.
And it is interesting (and somewhat unexpected) that both the ‘Earlier’ and ‘Modern' periods had extended pauses, which are noted on the chart #3.
Chart #4 depicts the cumulative temperature change for the full 25 years (300 months) ending in 1943 and 2015; plus, their respective changes in CO2 levels. Per NOAA’s own empirical dataset, the earlier 20th century warming cumulative amount was actually greater than the modern era period ending in December 2015 — and remember, the December 2015 temperatures anomaly just had an incredible surge due to the current El Niño peak.
In conclusion, as stated in the first paragraph, modern warming over the last 25 years is not exceptional, nor unprecedented in spite of the gigantic accumulation of atmospheric CO2 emissions during the fossil fuel era. Based on real world climate and the actual evidence, simulated predictions of future dangerous warming remain without any scientific substance.
Notes: The period of 1919-1943 was chosen for analysis and comparison due to its visual pattern similarities to the last 25 years ending December 2015. Source of NOAA global temperature dataset; modern and historical CO2 datasets. Excel was used to plot and calculate trends/averages for all charts. Chart#1 had 1919-1943 anomaly plot adjusted to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 period; chart#2 linear trends are based off plots of chart#1; chart#3 uses 5-year averages calculated from each period's anomaly dataset and then the 1919-1943 5yr average was adjusted (i.e. offset) to start at same anomaly point as 1991-2015 5yr average; chart#4 cumulative differences calculation: the December 31, 1943 anomaly minus the December 31, 1918 anomaly and the December 31, 2015 anomaly minus the December 31, 1990 anomaly (both calculations covering a full 300 months).
Even with the strong surge in global temperatures from the current El Niño and from the surge of 2015 global warming exaggeration and fabrication (here, here and here), there remains the strange case of establishment climate science models failing to meet expected outcomes.
Case in point. This chart replicates the famous climate model output presented to Congress and the world in 1988 by James Hansen, the then chief climatologist of the NASA/GISS climate research unit. (Here is an image of the original chart.)
The climate model predicted annual temperature changes would follow the bright green curve if greenhouse gases (GHGs) were not curtailed. GHGs include: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride - the latter 3 are known as fluorinated greenhouse gases.
The orange curve represents the predicted annual temperature changes if the GHG growth rate were reduced over time.
The chart's cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted annual temperature changes if GHGs were curtailed by governmental polices and regulations so that year 2000 and beyond had a net growth rate equal to zero.
From the Hansen 1998 testimony, there is this statement:
"We have considered cases ranging from business as usual [BAU], which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
From the 1988 Hansen peer-reviewed article that supports his testimony, there is this statement:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' [chart's green curve] assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' [chart's orange curve] has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' [chart's cyan curve] drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
So.....since NASA's top climate expert's testimony, what has happened with the GHG growth and growth rates?
From a recent U.S. EPA report on non-CO2 greenhouse gases, there is the following:
"Global non-CO2 emissions are projected to increase significantly between 2005 and 2030 unless further actions are taken to reduce emissions...total emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have nonetheless increased."
From the latest IPCC AR5 climate report, we know the following about GHGs (a synopsis here):
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
In addition, the combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Regarding fossil fuel CO2 emissions, specifically (CO2 data here): NASA and Hansen's 'BAU' Scenario A was proposed at a time when CO2 emissions were growing: since 1972, the 15 years ending 1987 the world emitted 285 billion tonnes of CO2. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.2% per year for those 15 years prior to Hansen's 1988 testimony.
In contrast, for the 15 years ending 2014, the world has emitted a total of 467 billion tonnes - that is growth some 1.6 times greater than Hansen's 'BAU'. This represents a CO2 average growth rate of 2.9% per year for the period since 1999.
Without any doubt, both empirically and objectively, NASA's Hansen's projected GHG emissions for 'Scenario A' has easily been exceeded since his testimony in 1988. To state otherwise is a falsehood, categorically.
Now, back to the above chart.
For the year 2015, NASA's model predictions had temperature change for all 3 scenarios declining. Of course, we now know the exact opposite took place with the sharp increase in 2015 global temps.
It is important to note that since the 1988 testimony, the NASA climate predictions have very rarely been correct regarding annual temperature changes. (NASA is not an exception, though - all climate computer models and experts suffer the same level of failure.)
For what it's worth, the chart also shows the 2016 predictions: there is continuing decline for Scenarios B & C, but a sharp spike up for Scenario A to a record calendar year anomaly level.
While global warming alarmists are celebrating 2015 as the "warmest" year ever, the climate model failures clearly point to the absurdity of focusing on peak or trough moments as indicators of informed expertise. Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.
Taking that to heart, the accompanying chart has 3-year average plots of highly adjusted observed temperatures from the NASA and UK climate agencies - the 3-year averages remove the focus from peaks/troughs.
As can be seen, 3-year averages of the GISS and HC4 datasets depict the last 3-year average increase due to the El Niño conditions, and those questionable man-made factors.
Be that as it may, the GISS and HC4 averages still remain closer to the realm of NASA's Scenario C range. As a reminder, the Scenario C predictions are a result of net zero GHG emissions simulated to have started in year 2000, which is yet another galaxy away from reality.
In conclusion, some relevant takeaways on climate models:
1. At this point, now close to 3 decades after NASA's testimony, one can safely surmise that expert climate models can't predict squat. The climate is a chaotic complex that defies even the most sophisticated and powerful forecasting tools.
2. GHG emissions have far surpassed the 1988 "world-will-soon-end" BAU construct - a construct that many alarmists still believe. Yet the predicted positive feedback from BAU has not occurred and thus runaway global warming is, without question, AWOL.
3. The climate models are still absolutely unable to discern either the amount or rate of global warming/cooling that is due to natural forces. The models were designed to purposefully rely on greenhouse gas forcings as their major causal factor, while diminishing natural climate impacts. It's no wonder that climate models remain on a fail path.
4. Based on the model outputs from 1960 to the present, policymakers and the public would be better served by rejecting the alarmist scenarios A and B; instead, moving forward, base all adaption and mitigation policies on Scenario 'C', which would likely produce better outcomes with superior allocation of scarce resources.
The climate models definitely have their important place in the climate researcher's toolbox. They are best suited to advance science's better understanding of our world, but their climate predictions, forecasts and prognostications should never be relied on - they are unreliable and inaccurate.
Update h/t: Video of climate scientist making the same point about climate model failure before a congressional committee on Feb 2, 2016:
Notes: NASA/GISS 2015 temperature dataset and HC4 2015 dataset. Excel was use to calculate chart's 3-month averages from their respective monthly datasets.
The lower troposphere represents that layer of the atmosphere which is predicted to first experience the positive feedback of accelerated warming due to human greenhouse gases.
Recently, NOAA and NASA held a global warming presentation, which included various charts, and an unexpected admission that the atmosphere was not as warm as previous El Niño years.
An essential general review of the presentation can be found here.
The troposphere's lack of achieving the "warmest" year label was confirmed by the NOAA/NASA analysis of the relevant balloon and satellite datasets. And the adjacent chart is a combination from the NOAA/NASA presentation, with one chart being superimposed atop the other.
Other than a normal atmospheric response to the latest large El Niño temperature surge, the chart documents the continued lack of dangerous positive feedback warming.
In a prior posting, the empirical evidence from a group of high quality tidal gauge locations revealed the long-term acceleration and deceleration of sea levels.
Overall, the last 30 years exhibited a trend of only 9-10 inches per century - certainly not a biggie even worthy of a climate-doomsday claim. This trend has been exceeded in the past, prior to the accumulation of high levels of CO2 gases in the atmosphere.
Despite this known evidence, over the last decade and a half much has been made of the claim that CO2 emissions were causing the seas to rise ever faster and would soon result in a literal swamping of Pacific islands.
But what does the actual non-tidal gauge empirical evidence say about the sea rise in the Pacific?
A. Map of Pacific sea height coordinates
B. Sea height anomalies & trends
C. 3-yr moving avgs of sea heights
D. Fitted trends Pacific island sea heights
(click on any image to enlarge)
Using the satellite observations, compiled by the leading sea level research group's site, one can download sea surface height anomalies from the beginning of the 21st century. This empirical evidence should clarify if civilization's massive CO2 emissions over the last 15+ years have caused a dangerous sea rise surge of ever higher waves.
And it does clarify.
Image 'A' above shows 32 ocean locations that were downloaded for this analysis. (There are four corner locations for each island region.)
Image 'B' contains the plots of each island region's average sea surface anomalies (monthly increase/decrease). While the sea heights can very significantly, the overall trend from the average anomalies(see dark green curve) is an underwhelming +1.8 mm/year - that translates to per century trend of 7.2 inches/century (the bright red trend line).
Image 'C' is the 3-year (36-mth) simple moving averages from the same anomaly datasets of 'B'. Again, the 3-year trends show variation, but for the most part, within a tight band.
Image 'D' is a plot of the datasets' fitted trends, which better show the increase/decrease cycle of the anomalies, which is difficult to discern from image 'B'. These trends reveal a similar up/down pattern that was evident in the prior analysis of the longer record from the tidal gauges.
The empirical evidence is rather convincing when it comes to a lack of rapidly rising sea heights around Pacific islands and atolls.
With that said, there indeed may be certain Pacific regions and specific island situations that are experiencing a greater acceleration of rising sea levels. But one would be hard-pressed to claim a unique location (or several) represents the result of CO2-induced global climate change when scientific measurement-reality obviously indicates accelerating, doomsday sea level rise is not a global phenomenon.
Notes: Download Excel spreadsheet with sea height anomaly datasets (and comments) for these 8 island regions: Hawaii, Tuvalu, Midway, Nauru, Wake, Tahiti, Norwalk and Marshall. Plots and trends produced from a January 2000 start date in order to identify the 21st century sea level rise conditions versus the claims.
Across the globe there exist only a handful of tide gauge station records available that exceed 100 years in length, and that also report at least 90% of the monthly records over the last 100 years.
Using the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database, one can identify 15 gauge sites that are exemplary in record keeping. In addition, all 15 have records through 2013, with the majority (12) having records through 2014.
The 15 sites with a long history of gauge readings are listed on the adjacent chart. The chart also includes an average of all 15 and a plot of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The chart plots the per century trends, by month, based on moving 30-year (360-month) periods.
The smooth trend curves plotted are fitted, providing a visual as to where sea level acceleration and deceleration have been, and indicate where they might be going. [Ed: Using trends for predictive purposes is not recommended.]
The purplish (mauve) smooth curve is the average of all moving per century trends for the 15 sites; the monthly datapoints for the average of all is depicted also (see the variable mauve plot).
What do the mauve trend curve and mauve monthly datapoint plot reveal?
For the average of the world's longest and most complete sea level records, there has been relatively small variation in sea level trends calculated from the moving 30-year periods.
The greatest sea rise trend took place at the 30-year period ending December 1952 - a trend rise of 10.6 inches per century.
The lowest trend happened in May 1977 - an increase of 4.1 inches per century.
The 100-year trend, as of the end of 2013, was 9.5 inches per century for all 15 sites.
For the 12 sites reporting records through December 2014, the rise trend was 9.1 inches per century.
Putting it into the human-caused 'climate change' context, this global mean of long-term sea level trend has clearly not been a function of the rapidly rising CO2 levels (see chart's plot of moving 360-month average of atmospheric CO2 levels).
In summary, the overall sea level rise trend has been rather unimpressive, and slightly meandering back and forth since the early 1940s, while CO2 levels have exhibited a seemingly exponential growth. At the end of 2014, the 30-year trend amounted to a 2.3 to 2.5 mm (9 to 10 inches) increase per year.
The chart also reveals the two outliers of the group: Stockholm and Galveston, Texas. They both show a distinct cycle of ups and downs with no obvious relation to CO2 levels. (Stockholm's gauge has recorded a declining sea level trend.....at -14.3 inches per century, as of the end of 2014.)
For the other 13 gauge sites, the chart only depicts the smoothed fitted trends of sea level rise using the 30-year periods. Each site's trend exhibits a slightly different cyclical pattern cycle from others but most stay within a fairly narrow range over the decades. (See monthly per century trends plotted without the smooth fitted curves.)
Finally, the chart's two dashed fitted curves, red and blue, represent opposite trend directions at the end of 2013 - they are San Francisco and Freemantle, Australia. These two sites would suggest that a unified, in-sync global sea level change is not a reality.
Conclusion:
The above chart from the 15 sites indicates a current per century trend of 2.2-2.5 mm/year increase in mean sea levels, with the 1950's having a peak trend of approximately 2.7 mm/year (0.11 inches/yr). The raw sea level records when averaged, from beginning to end for the 101 years of records, calculates to an average site increase of 2.05 mm/year (0.08 inches/yr).
The current rate of sea level rise is not unusual versus the late 1940's and early 50's, which is an era prior to the huge increase in consumer/industrial CO2 emissions. And certainly this chart shows ancient sea level increases that were multiple times larger and faster than those observed with our modern climate.
This adjacent sea level infographic from a 2015 study published in the Sciencejournal confirms that sea levels were significantly higher in the pre-history than our current levels.
When comparing the ancient past with the modern 15-site gauge per century trend of the last 30 years, it would take some 2,500 years to reach the 6-meter higher sea levels recorded approximately 125,000 years ago at a much lower CO2 level.
And to reach a more modest 1-meter sea level increase would take approximately 400+ years, per today's sea level trends.
**(Infographic's explanation: Peak global mean temperature, atmospheric CO2, maximum global mean sea level (GMSL), and source(s) of meltwater. Light blue shading indicates uncertainty of GMSL maximum. Red pie charts over Greenland and Antarctica denote fraction (not location) of ice retreat.)
The modern climate alarmism fears of the soon-to-be flooding of coastal regions, which would unleash a horde of climate refugees, is entirely without scientific merit, per the modern dataset records and the expert research done on the pre-history sea levels and trends.
Notes: Excel was used to calculate and plot the moving sea level per century curves and fitted trends (Excel slope function produced trends based on moving 360-month periods for each month in the dataset; then converted to per century trends (inches) for each month). Excel also used to calculate averages and to sort dataset records to identify highest per century trends for each site. The smooth fitted trends are to the 6th order. The Key West, Florida dataset's first record was January 1913, thus all 15 site sea level calculations started at the same date; the first 30-year trend calculated occurred at the December 1942 dataset record - hence, the plotted trends in the top chart start with December 1942. PSMSL datasets were the source of all records used for the chart. Download raw sea level datasets in Excel spreadsheet for all 15 sites, from 1913 to 2014. The datasets chosen included those that had data at least through December 2013; had at least a 100 year record of monthly reporting; and, had at least a 90% reporting of all 1,012 months covering the 101 years. The 'youngest' dataset meeting the criteria, Key West, determined the 101-year span used.
As the state-of-the-art satellite technology shows (see chart), significant global warming since the early 2000’s has been nonexistent.
There has definitely been an extended ‘pause’ (aka the ‘Hiatus’ in science journals). The pause has generated some 60+ scientific explanations regarding its existence and persistence.
This has become a real problem for many proponents of dangerous global warming, which has recently pushed them into a stance of actually denying the 'pause'.
Empirically, since November 2000 the lower atmosphere temperature trend has actually been negative at a minus 0.12ºC per century trend. (The chart’s green curve is a 36-month average, which makes the pause even clearer to the casual observer.)
The chart also includes r-squared calculations, besides linear trends, that indicate a fairly weak 30-year relationship between CO2 and temperatures, which appears to have become a zero relationship over the last 15 years.
In review, the AGW theory is based on a CO2-induced warming of the lower atmosphere, at a rapid and accelerating warming rate - this being a result of the theory's speculative positive feedback loop.
As can be seen, the satellite empirical evidence after 30+ years does not readily support the climate-alarmist AGW theory, nor the doomsday predictions of global warming hell.
Although the satellites are considered the gold-standard for measuring and observing sea levels, hurricanes/typhoons, ozone holes, sea ice, atmospheric CO2 distribution, polar ice sheet masses and etc., the same 24/7 technology used to measure temperatures across the entire habitable world is now being ignored (i.e., denied) due to the above inconvenient evidence.
Denying the global-warming pause has recently become a self-inflicted, nightmarish scenario for agenda-driven scientists - in a sense, they have morphed into science deniers. And all these political shenanigans, plus the ongoing NASA/NOAA data fabrication/tampering, are proving to be a significant drag on the reputation and integrity of the science community.
Note: Source of monthly satellite data; source of month CO2 levels. Excel used to plot and calculate linear trends and r-squared values (per Excel's correlation function).
The adjacent chart pretty much makes a turkey mockery of accelerating global warming fears. It's simply not flying happening.
While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against "catastrophic" global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds' elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate-evil.
Like so many Thanksgivings of the past, those on the 'quest' have piously announced civilization's reaching its 'last chance' point of saving itself from climate doomsday. But all of these TurkeynadoSharknado-like prophecies that the end-is-near have proven to be pure anti-science fiction.
At some point, we can hope some sanity returns to the climate science anti-CO2 Quixote brotherhood of warriors. But in the meantime, what does the actual climate science say?
Well, this chart is just brutally frank: the fast growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (the black dots) have not exactly been the robust evil foe the elite establishment has fixated on.
As the chart depicts, the CO2 impact on either short (red curve) or long-term (pink curve) rapid global temperature acceleration appears to be non-existent versus the "consensus" predictions. And the blue-dash curve reveals the rather turkey-like impact on the 36-month average of absolute global temperatures.
Indeed, global temperatures have increased since 1950. But the scientific reality is that the chart confirms a steady global warming that has been taking place since the end of the Little Ice Age (late 1700s) - well before the influx of the giant CO2 emissions from the industrial/consumer era. The chart clearly shows a long history of frequent periods of rapidly increasing temperatures, then to be always followed by a significant deceleration.
Examine the chart's most recent period, from December 1996 through October 2015. The periods of both rapid temperature increases and decreases are evident, just as they existed since instrumental recording of temperatures first began.
The vast majority of climate analysis based on actual empirical evidence show similar results, whether in a global or regional context.
Terrified by global warming doomsday? Not so much anymore, it would seem.
Suffice it to say, Americans are no longer impressed by the claims of government and celebrity elites. Fully 97% now reject the unreal turkey-esque predictions of climate change disasters.
And the American public is not alone. The global masses join Americans in their low assessment of the elites' unscientific climate calamities.
As the public has learned, the empirical evidence supports neither the man-made climate change disaster narrative nor the CO2-reducing solutions proposed, which have been seriously debunked.
With all that said, foolish anti-science elites will continue to make preposterous claims and those exaggerated, attic-crazy predictions leading up to the soon to be Paris COP21 climate conference.
One last 'chance' - look at the chart, are you still terrified this Thanksgiving? How about that wacky college-aged, censorship-loving, millennial niece gnawing on that turkey wing next to you?
Note: Excel used to calculate the 3-year absolute temperature and CO2 level averages; also used to calculate the moving 36-month and 360-month per century acceleration/deceleration trends (Excel slope function) as depicted on chart; the absolute temps calculated using the HadCRUT4 month anomalies and NOAA's monthly global mean temperature estimates; and, the 3-year average beginning value for CO2 was offset to a zero starting place. Temperature sources used: here and here. CO2 sources used: here (March 1958-October 2015) and here (used annual historical levels for each month of the given year, from January 1850 to February 1958).
Government-funded scientists, the Green's anti-CO2 activists and the mainstream media-alarmists have all claimed that the current drought being suffered by the US west coast is the extreme climate change Americans have never experienced before.
They claim it is due to human CO2 emissions of the modern industrial and consumer civilization.
Yet severe droughts have been part and parcel of the world's climate since humans started recording severe weather events. Across the globe, and the US, there is no shortage of historical drought reports and other extreme climate conditions.
More specifically, as the images below attest, drought extremes in the US have been extensively documented by NOAA since the 1900s, with most taking place well before the global 350ppm CO2 atmospheric level was commonplace.
For a perspective, the October 2015 drought conditions (top-left image) have often been exceeded by some kick-ass October drought conditions in the past. (click on any image to enlarge)
Simply put, the climate has always been changing, impacting large geographical regions at any given time. As the scientific empirical evidence makes clear, a changing climate is not unusual, and most definitely is not solely due to human CO2 emissions.
For someone to claim otherwise is literally anti-scientific.
Note: Source of images from this NOAA site. During 1988, global CO2 emissions first cracked the 350ppm CO2 level. NOAA reports that the October 1988 reading was 349.08.
The climate doomsday-cult promoters at the Huffington Post and Climate Nexus did their usual thing, trying to convince the American public that Hurricane Joaquin was the result of global warming.
Of course, when the alarmists uttered these claims, they were based on the hurricane computer models that forecast Joaquin's path would strike the East Coast of the U.S. Fortunately for the coastal residents, the climate change doomsters were wrong, spectacularly.
Instead, as the adjacent chart clearly documents, those ocean waters have cooled since 1940, not warmed as predicted. Another case of 'those stubborn facts'.
In summary, the empirical evidence again confirms that climate simulations and computer models are very suspect regarding their capabilities at both short and long-term predictions/forecasts. Governing elites, bureaucrats and the public should absolutely not base any expensive policy-making decisions on these research tools.
The much embarrassing 'Pause' continues to ignore the predictions of the wrong-way IPCC and government-funded climate "scientists" - you know, the "experts" who have been long predicting end-of-the-world global warming since the late 80's.
The adjacent chart reflects poorly on the "consensus" science that unequivocally states the human CO2 emissions must first increase the lower troposphere temperatures in order to warm the Earth. This violation of the sacrosanct climate-agenda physics has become a real hiatus head-scratcher for scientists and journalists making a living off the govt-approved orthodoxy.
Despite 'those stubborn facts', the elites - i.e. bureaucrats and politicians - of the U.N. and national governments continue plans to party-in-Paris come late November, without any regard to actual climate reality. The political 'Agenda' and climate COP21 show must go on regardless of inconvenient evidence-based science.
The major proponents of climate doomsday alarmism claim that the growth of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is causing a rapid growth of dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels.
But does the scientific empirical evidence support that claim?
In climate reality, not only is it a false claim, it is at best anti-science propaganda.
This chart plots the percent growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions versus the percent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1966. As can be observed, the emissions growth is on a strong declining trend whereas the atmospheric CO2 continues on its modestly increasing growth trend.
The R2 between the two depicted annual growth rate plots is an embarrassingly low 0.02 (zero comes to mind for some reason), which reflects an overall large negative trend of CO2 emissions percentage growth versus a small positive percentage growth trend for atmospheric CO2.
Question: If actual CO2 emission growth is a weak causal factor in atmospheric CO2 growth, then how exactly can it be a strong cause of dangerous "accelerating" growth of global warming, per the dogmatic AGW hypothesis?
Oh, that's right, global warming is not accelerating.
Note: Source of CO2 annual CO2 emissions tonnes and source of CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels. Growth percent calculations and chart plots accomplished using Excel. Update: Annual growth percents plotted are calculated using prior year measurement as numerator and following year measurement as denominator. Another update: typo on chart corrected - thank you, Tom Nelson.
The Pope's climate doomsday encyclical has generated a lot of controversy; and has probably doomed him to be eventually nominated for the Catholic 'hall of shame' for fear mongering anti-science.
Of course, it's not completely the Pope's fault for his ignorance. The Pope's gatekeepers and advisers can take much of the credit for making sure he did not hear about the actual climate science empirical evidence.
One climate doomsday scenario (among many) that continues to have no basis in climate science reality is the infamous prediction that Gaia will soon have a Venus-like atmosphere and boiling oceans...because of humans fossil fuel use. You can rest assured that Pope Francis was made aware of the potentiality of this fringe calamity.
It's a calamity that has long been pushed by the world's leading climate science alarmists.
NASA's former top climate expert, James Hansen, has been in the past a principal proponent of this particular doomsday prophecy. And of course, he provided the dramatic testimony to Congress in the summer of 1988 that really initiated the fear mongering in the U.S. regarding catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters - like turning Earth into Venus.
Unfortunately for the Pope, James Hansen and other hysterical climate doomsday soothsayers, the real world empirical evidence clearly shows that the world's climate is self-correcting and not prone to those scary predicted tipping points and runaway disasters from growing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Case in point: The Tropics (20S to 20N latitudes) - A Venus Doomsday?
The above chart plot reveals a tropical climate, as measured by satellites, experiencing a very slight cooling trend (blue curve) over the last 20 years. In contrast, the IPCC's latest climate model (CMIP5/RCP4.5) curve (green line) predicted a significant warming trend during that same 20-year period.
Going back even further, the red chart plot depicts an 83-month period of exceptional warming right after the Hansen testimony of 1988. In contrast, the IPCC climate models predicted a significant cooling trend for the Tropics for those 83 months - an abysmal failure, represented by a 7 degree trend difference between reality and prediction.
Needless to say, although we will, both the consensus climate experts and climate models have been spectacularly wrong in their doomsday projections for the Tropics, which means that human CO2 causing Venus-like conditions for Gaia has no basis in climate science reality.
It's unfortunate that this pope fell victim to his own gullibility and the anti-science machinations of his court jesters advisers. But there is good news for the Catholic masses: you can now also comfortably ignore this encyclical since it was produced from the irrational passion of fear versus the known rational, empirical climate science.
It is well documented that global temperature acceleration has significantly paused since 1998, despite the global CO2 emissions growth rate easily exceeding the business-as-usual (BAU) scenarios presented by NASA's James Hansen way back in 1988.
Yet the UN's Paris2015 proposed deep cuts in "dangerous" global CO2 emission growth rates will only delay "climate doomsday" by a laughable 8 months. And that would be accompanied by a likely debilitating economic impact of trillions of dollars - mostly suffered by the world's poor and most vulnerable.
The chart on left plots the most up-to-date 15-year average growth rates of CO2 emissions versus the global economy 15-year average growth rates. Surprisingly, as the GDP growth rate declines, on average, CO2 emissions growth just continues.
With that pointed out, it's also pertinent to point out that over the last 15 years the U.S. total emissions have actually shrunk, as well as those of the EU. In contrast, CO2 emissions for other major world economic regions have robustly increased over the last 15 years.
Note: Source of CO2 emissions data, source of past global GDP growth and 2014 estimated growth. The above Excel chart includes 2nd order polynomial fitted trends of the 15-year average growth rates.
Article: From the science-is-never-settled department, a new study utilizing satellite technology measures Antarctica's albedo. It is found to be increasing overall, thus increasing the solar radiation reflected back into space. Ergo, there be climate cooling forces at work despite record atmospheric levels of CO2.
Article: Researchers analyze empirical evidence across 8 Korean cities. It is inescapable, cold extremes are much more dangerous for humans than heat waves. Cold waves boost admissions some 50% versus 5% for heat waves. From this peer-reviewed study, one can conclude that global warming will reduce the cold extremes, thus making it safer for human life.
Article: NASA temperature records for Antarctica peninsula show no real warming since the late 1980s - a 'pause' that predates the global one, despite record levels of atmospheric CO2.
That catastrophic anthropogenic "global warming" from CO2 just does not want to play by the IPCC agenda rules ... the predicted "for sure" global sea ice melting has taken a hiatus since the turn of the century ... this very inconvenient pause (stall?) will soon reach a full 15 years ... not a single IPCC climate model or "expert" predicted this outcome ... and just as a reminder, they can't predict 'squat'.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
It's another day and another stubborn climate fact: global sea ice is not melting as expected by the experts.
This chart, per the U.S. government's funded NSIDC's dataset, clearly documents the global melting pause.
Unexpectedly for the IPCC and associates, the trend is flat, despite the greatest growth in human CO2 emissions ever recorded.
At this point, it would be safe to say that the empirical evidence confirms that past hysterical projections of a global sea ice meltdown by global warming alarmists were without true scientific merit, due to being based on an untested and weak hypothesis that humans would cause catastrophic climate change.
As always, the UN and its elite climate "science" agency are abysmally wrong ... once again ... failed predictions seem to be the preferred coin of the IPCC realm ... begs the question: will the IPCC even achieve 10% of their catastrophic global warming predictions being correct over the next few decades? ... highly unlikely, due to its political agenda and the absurd reliance on climate models that simply don't work as advertised.....
(click on image to enlarge)
Per this article, the catastrophic sea rise predictions of CAGW proponents are found to be without any merit.
The new study examined 118 years of empirical evidence and discovered that small Pacific islands are not disappearing under the waves of a rising ocean. Instead, the tiny atoll islands are actually growing larger.
Although the Vatican (and yet another Pope) has embraced the fearmongering of anti-science and anti-empiricism, the unicorn of climate change...dangerous and accelerating global warming...still does not exist, according to the UK's HadCRUT4 dataset published by the MetOffice.....
(click on graph to enlarge)
Using the updated HC4 global anomalies dataset, since 1955 the global temperature trend for intermediate and long-term periods has never exceeded 1.8 degrees per century, let alone the fabled 2.0° mark, as of calculations based on the March 31, 2015 date.
As the adjacent graph reveals, the latest 10 year trend since 2005 has dropped to a barely measurable 0.4°/century and the last 18 years (since 1997) is an eyelash higher at 0.67°/century - and by the way, both of these figures are essentially climate-impact insignificant.
Why 1997? Well...there has been very little warming since 1997. What warming there has been is robustly below what "expert" climate models projected. Climate scientists typically refer to this unexpected deceleration as the 'hiatus' or 'pause'.
Per the chart of empirical evidence, the deceleration of global warming is evident from the fitted trend curve.
Sticking with that last 18-year trend as of March 2015, how does the most recent period stack up versus other 18-year periods when the entire HC4 dataset from 1850 is analyzed?
Since 1850, there has been 1,983 months of reported temperatures. From those, 1,768 18-year trend datapoints can be calculated.
The March 2015 18-year trend datapoint ranks number #875 - so, approximately half of the past datapoints possess a higher 18-year trend.
Yet atmospheric CO2 growth since 1964, as represented by the green circles on the graph, has been non-stoppable, blowing well past the hypothetical "safe" 350ppm level to reach the highest modern CO2 level ever.
This combination of temperature acceleration datapoints and CO2 measurements clearly demonstrates that CAGW accelerated warming does not exist; and it is unequivocally, irrefutably, undeniably and non-debatable that the world is experiencing a rather tepid, 'luke-warming' environment.
Historically, today's temperature trends are entirely within in the realm of what has taken place in the past from natural temperature variation, regardless of CO2 levels.
In other words, it is indisputable that the current climate does not suffer from "dangerous" man-made warming.
One could say that this infallible empiricism defines the non-religious, scientific climate change reality, so-to-speak.
Notes: Interpreting the above chart's blue columns: for example, since 1984 (see yellow box) the last 31 years (see corresponding blue column X-axis label) the warming trend was 1.73C/century, as of the 31-year period ending March 2015. The green circles are simple calendar year atmospheric CO2 measurements - the first (leftmost) circle represents 1964 and the last green circle is 2014. All blue columns representing temperature trends use at least 100 months of temperature measurements for the trend calculations (using less than 100 can produce extreme volatility for calculated trends - the less than 100 datapoint calculations are very interesting but can be quite misleading). Excel was used to calculate the different period trends (using Excel's slope function); Excel's charting function was used to plot the trend datapoints. Those stubborn facts: source of UK MetOffice H4 dataset; source of atmospheric annual CO2 levels.
Today's climate-doomsday cult celebrities and global warming alarmists continue to deny the truth about past extreme weather and natural disasters that took place well before atmospheric CO2 surpassed 350ppm...now combine that with current stable of IPCC-favored scientists who deny that the previous generation of scientists were predicting global cooling...and what do you get?...a fringe group representing a tiny slice of the world populace...a slice of fanaticism in total denial of the existence and power of natural climate change...past, present and in the future...they're *Deniers 'R' Us*, no?.....
IPCC Scientists' Favorite "Climate Science" Movies
There are past periods of extreme weather and severe natural disasters that just stand out as examples of strange climate activity and weird 'earthly' behavior.
The decade of the 1970s is one such period of bizarre, freaky and dangerous weather that prompted serious scientific discussions regarding global climate change at the time.
And the most discussed condition of climate change that had the focus of scientists and government experts?
Global cooling.
Below is a list of early 1970's weather (and other natural disaster) events and links to multiple articles about the most popular climate change hypothesis at the time.
And these adjacent movie posters?
Pure Hollywood, utilizing anti-science propaganda masquerading as possible climate catastrophic conditions from global warming.
And try guessing the audience that embraces the gutter of such doomsday garbage - of course, you aren't surprised are you?
Thank you, Obama!....US DOE researchers connect-the-dots...confirm for the public, once and for all, that natural climate change was bigger!, badder!, warmer! and cooler! than the meek modern era climate...science has spoken!!...the science is settled!!...the debate is over!!...it's a consensus!!...indeed, modern warming is very natural-like, just not as robust versus the past.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This chart was recently produced by government scientists, as noted here and here.
This single chart compilation by govt researchers confirms what multiple studies have shown over and over again...natural climate change rules, regardless of CO2 greenhouse emissions.
Several obvious points from this research pictorial.
A. Past natural climate change has produced extreme volatility and variation.
B. Reconstructed temperature proxies reveal multiple climatic periods of acceleration and levels of cooling/warming that far exceed what the modern era has experienced.
C. Modern global warming is not extreme nor unique, even compared to the relatively recent period of the Minoan/Bronze age civilizations.
D. Current temperatures would not have to drop by that much for Earth to enter an ice age glaciation period.
E. Earth has been in an overall cooling mode for the last 10 million years.
These 5 scientific factual points are indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable and unequivocal. [Editor opinion: Any scientist, politician, bureaucrat or journalist/pundit who states otherwise is a definitive climate change denier - or, maybe 'anti-science' liar would be a more apt label for those denying what climate science has proven to be fact.]
Two more points to be considered.
First, the DOE scientists who produced this chart attached instrument thermometer readings to reconstructed proxy estimates. This is truly an apple-to-orange comparison without any scientific validity. It's a science 'no-no' in lay terms. In addition, modern era proxy reconstructions reveal a temperature decline since 1960 that these DOE scientists conveniently fail to mention identify.
Second, it has been well established by multiple analysts that modern climate records have been heavily manipulated by govt "scientists" to fabricate faux-warming over vast regions of the globe. It is now estimated that large swaths have had their climate records "adjusted" upward by at least 0.4C over the last 20 years. To appreciate the huge extent of the temperature fabrication, visit these search links: here, here, here, here and charts here.
When these two considerable factors are taken into account, the actual modern warming that has occurred is likely better represented by the mauve arrow added to the chart on the right side.
Alas, in the scheme of actual climate empirical evidence, modern warming is not so much as it turns out. It's those stubborn facts, again.
Winter can be sooo cruel...especially for scientists who have long immersed themselves in the pile of manure that CO2 CAGW hysteria represents...good news, though!...NASA and James Hansen have a fallback position...namely, the previous climate hysteria predictions they and the press were pushing on Congress and the public.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
This updated NOAA U.S. temperature map is a stark reminder of the incredibly cold climate that northern and eastern areas of the US have recently experienced. The bitter cold, in particular, impacted those regions east of the Mississippi River, with states butting up against Canada taking the brunt.
It's also a reminder of those predictions by NASA experts and computer models, as promulgated during 1988 congressional testimony, that accelerated global warming would significantly impact the U.S., with many "experts" then claiming our future was one of warmer winters and no snow.
More to that point is the adjacent chart of US Nov/Dec/Jan temperatures (28 years) and trends since that 1988 testimony. It represents the following 8 states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (all these states are east of the Mississippi and share a border with Canada).
To summarize the chart essentials:
1. Winter temperatures (Nov/Dec/Jan) exhibit a strong variability (the blue columns). Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels during this period has not caused ever-warmer winters.
2. Many of the winters are below the 1988 average of 27.58°F, including the winters of 2014 and 2015. (see blue dashed line)
3. Despite the very warm winter of 2002, the overall warming trend (orange curves) of winter temperatures has collapsed to a cooling trend of -5.7°F. There is no escaping the obvious NOAA empirical evidence that greenhouse gases are not producing the predicted accelerated warming.
4. The 10-year average winter temperature (the green curve) peaked in 2007 from a low experienced in 1989. Without any doubt, those few very exceptional warm winters (5 of the 28 winter datapoints) have definitely moved the average up. With that said, since 2007 it has declined slightly.
Is the U.S. just a rare anomaly where a cooling winter trend, not warming, is happening? Unfortunately, for the public and CAGW-scientists, regions with cooling trends are becoming more common.
Additional current empirical evidence that CO2 does not cause dangerous "warming" winters:
Note: Source of dataset for 8-state winter temperature chart produced by Excel. Using Excel calculated the 8-state winter months average; the 10-year trends and averages that begin with year 1988 on the chart used U.S. winter (Nov/Jan/Dec) temperature data starting with November 1979.The 1988 blue-diamond column on chart represents year of James Hansen global warming testimony.
Climate science continues to document the powerful, repeating natural patterns that produce the ups/downs of climate change...yet, many political, journalism, celebrity elites, and newly-minted wannabes deny the existence of these past, current and future climate patterns...to the point of grossly misleading the public and constituents in regards to natural climate change, natural global warming, and yes, natural worldwide cooling...so, is it plain anti-science that drives their denial?...an unfathomable ignorance?...or just the intellectually-lame desire to be politically correct?.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Using the UK's MetOffice global HadCRUT4 (HC4) dataset as a proxy for long-term climate change, it allows for a breakdown of when such changes occurred.
For this article's definitional purposes, long-term change is defined at those points where the HC4 30-year global average shifted to a new level (up or down) by 0.1°C, for at least 12-months in a row.
[Editor: Why ±0.1 changes and not ±0.01? Because long-term changes of hundredths of a degree is an absurd and statistically bogus change-assessment technique for 12 months, let alone 360 months.]
The adjacent chart depicts those ±0.1 changes. As can be observed, there have been a total of 10 shifts since the 1850-beginning of this global instrument dataset.
There was a shift down in the global 30-year average starting in July 1909, for a period that extended to October 1928. The next full 0.1°C shift arrived in November 1928 when the 30-year average increased by 0.1°C, attaining its previous level.
That was then followed by 3 more shifts, each of different lengths.
Then the same exact pattern of shifting repeats, with 1 cooling shift followed by 4 warming shifts.
The warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) did not have a major impact on long-term HC4 averages until the early 1900's.
Natural global warming since the LIA-rebound started has not been consistent, nor even predictable.
As represented by the 30-year global average shifts, the first span of global warming (consisting of the first 4 shifts up) was very lengthy, reaching all the way into the 1970's - this long span being primarily well before the gargantuan consumer/industrial CO2 emissions from the late 20th century of the modern era.
The amount of long-term increase for the last 4 shifts equals +0.4°C, the same as the earlier 'up' shifts, but it occurred over a shorter time span.
Does all of the above mean that the future will be an exact repeat of the pattern? Well, the definitive answer to that is 'no'.
There is no denying that, in general, modern climate change closely resembles what has taken place in the past. The similarities are evident, despite short-term climate variations that produce observable differences in duration, levels and intensity.
As the latest peer-reviewed research indicates, modern climate scientists are finally rediscovering (for example and example) the climate truths that their predecessors were aware of: natural earthly/solar/cosmic forces produce repeating (and similar) climate oscillations/cycles, creating dominant influences that dictate overall patterns for long-term climate change.
Yes, the human influence does exist, but it is a distinctly minor player in the long-term scheme of climate patterns.
And because these amazing pattern similarities happen in a chaotic system, they can neither be predicted, nor controlled. Those stubborn facts are continually ignored by advocates of human-caused climate change predictions.
Note: This monthly temperature dataset and Excel used to calculate moving 30-year averages. First, monthly anomalies were used to calculate a 12-month average for each month. Then using an estimate of 14.0C for the global temperature average of the 20th century, 12-month absolute temperatures were calculated from the calculated 12-month average anomalies. Finally, 30-year (360-month) absolute global averages were calculated. Excel's rounding function used to identify ±0.1C changes.
The "dangerous" climate change and "catastrophic" global warming crowd experienced brutal shell shock this past week...the "warmest-evah" and "hottest-ever" memes went down in hot flames, so to speak...UK's MetOffice published the bad news.....
So, in a nutshell, was 2014 the warmest (the hottest) year?
As the adjacent chart shows, the reported 2014 HadCRUT4 (HC4) global temperature with its estimated error bars (±0.1°C) may have been the warmest, and then again.....there are 15 prior years that may have been warmer when considering all the error bar implications.
To add another consideration to the analysis, why should one blindly accept that the margin of error is only ±0.1°C?
Maybe it's time for both the policymakers and public to recognize that the margin of error should be at least ±0.2°C for global temperatures, as reported by the major climate agencies.
Why?
As a numerous experts are discovering, and clearly documenting, the major climate research agencies have been practicing a wholesale change (i.e. adjusting, manipulating, fabricating, etc.) of the reported empirical measurements. The result? The recent global surface temperature datasets are now much warmer than originally reported.
And it is not difficult for the non-government climate science experts to identify locations across the globe where temperatures have been "adjusted" up well past the supposed margin error upside of +0.1°C.
This means that the commonly used margin of error as currently applied does not take into consideration the plethora of recent questionable manipulations to make the world "warmer." Put another way: the margin of error does not account for the identified 'scientist-caused' global warming.
Case in point.
During early 2014, the MetOffice replaced the world's gold-standard HadCRUT3 (HC3) global temp dataset with their new HC4. When one applies the more probable ±0.2°C error range to the cooler HC3 dataset, the result is that there are actual years during the decade of the 1970's that would have matched the 2014 HC3 reported temp; and multiple years of the 80's that would have exceeded.
Conclusion: From a variety of measurement tools, it is known that the world has warmed overall since the 1970s. It is now indisputable that the MetOffice/NASA/NOAA surface temperature datasets have "mysteriously" and significantly diverged from the satellite temperature measurements that they so well matched in the past. It is also well established that the surface datasets are constantly being adjusted upward on a frequent basis. Because of these questionable adjustments, the commonly used margin of error is most likely too narrow. In order to compensate for these human endeavors to enhance the "global warming" storyline, the margin of error range applied by policymakers should at least be doubled, if not more.
Claims of rapid, accelerating, dangerous and unequivocal global warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases means that should be happening...especially for the oceans that represent about 72% of the Earth's surface...yet the latest empirical evidence shows the above adjectives are big fat lies when it comes to this gigantic thermal sink...Ooops...those stubborn facts strike again.....
(click on pie chart to enlarge)
Ocean expert Bob Tisdale's recent article delineated the various warming trends of the key ocean basins.
His dataset for the adjacent chart comes from the ARGO system, which is the most sophisticated technology in use for measuring ocean depth warming. (More on that dataset here.)
Previously, 'C3' published an article about the non-"unequivocal" nature of global warming. That article also provided insight as to locations of the much feared "dangerous" and "rapid" global warming - turns out the only locations are the concrete/asphalt environs of airports and major urban/metro areas.
So, what does the actual ocean-deep warming empirical evidence presented on this chart tell us? (Remember, this is the warmed-up data presented after bureaucrat sceintists adjusted the raw measurment data.)
#1. On a per century trend basis, global warming of the oceans is barely happening.
#2. Unequivocal ocean warming is not taking place - note that neither the Pacific or North Atlantic exhibit a warming that is climate significant (in fact, one could claim their warming is likely a function of measurement error and/or those "adjustments").
#3. The oceans are not going to be boiling from CO2 emissions as predicted by NASA's top climate expert.
#4. If 72% of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.
Hmmm...those stubborn climate facts can be sooo annoying.
Climate-doomsday cult predictions of CO2-induced extreme climate change have been a common, easy refrain of politicos seeking donations from special interest groups...yet, the empirical evidence provided by NOAA and other climate agencies is simply overwhelming...those much anticipated increases of severe weather events from greenhouse gases are just not happening, including U.S. tornadoes.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
Tornadoes. They're dangerous and they're unsympathetic killers.
These extreme weather events are officially categorized in severity from 'EF0' to 'EF5' - with the higher number being the rarest of the killer tornadoes.
As this chart reveals, the good news for the U.S. is that the categories of severe tornadoes (E2-E5) are on the decline. The declining trends, since the 1950's period of lower atmospheric CO2 levels, are indisputable.
Based on a casual observation, one might conclude that increasing CO2 levels and global warming have curtailed these frightening weather phenomenon. Good!
Ahhh...those stubborn climate facts provided by NOAA are just sooo inconvenient at times, no?
Note: During the 2011 tornado season, there was a strong uptick but since then the severity T-counts have subsided, confirming the longer-term trend. 1950-2013 tornado dataset here. NOAA has not yet published official the 2014 severe tornado counts. Severe tornado counts for 2014 were confimed here, here, here, here, here and here. Above plots and trends produced using Excel.
NOAA and NCDC have updated many of their weather/climate trend reports for end of 2014...as observed in the recent past, severe weather trends have not seen the "expert" predicted increase from CO2, other greenhouse gases and, of course, global warming...the climate-doomsday cult talk from political-persons, mainstream reporters/pundits and on-the-dole bureaucrats remains without any empirical merit.....
(click on chart to enlarge)
One means to view the lack of climate extremes is to examine an interesting dataset that NOAA/NCDC maintains - the monthly % of U.S. that is either very wet and/or very dry. It has recently been updated through 2014.
As can be seen from this chart, very wet and very dry U.S. conditions fluctuate dramatically. Yet, some 45 years after 1970, the 5-year averages by the end of 2014 are close to the values decades before.
The huge increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from human emissions over this time obviously has had no impact (e.g. correlations of either climate condition with CO2 doesn't even reach the ±0.03 yawn mark).
This NOAA dataset extends all the way back to 1895; and the end result is its being, on average, within the same narrow range over the last century.
Despite the proclamations by those politicians and elites who are readily influenced by moneyed special interests, there is yet to be any empirical scientific evidence that CO2 is a causal agent producing extreme climate change or severe weather events.
Like most inconvenient stubborn climate facts, the mainstream media propaganda that modern global warming is "unprecedented" doesn't stand up to even simple scrutiny of the facts...with little effort, one can identify, via NOAA, earlier periods where global warming was greater and increasing faster...is this a case of journalists being deniers of empirical evidence?.....
As this chart of empirical evidence demonstrates, global warming has taken place in the past, well before the explosion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
And there have been times when earlier warming either equaled or exceeded modern warming. For the 25-year period shown, early 20th century warming was actually greater than the 25-yr warming through 2014.
For almost all consumers of the mainstream press, they are totally unaware that recent warming has no 'chops', so to speak.
It is not "unprecedented" and it certainly is less rapid than the earlier period. Also, the modern warming rate exhibits a 1.16°C per century trend. The earlier period? A 1.75°C/century trend.
Boiling it down to the numbers...that's 1.5x faster warming for 1920-1944, yet modern CO2 emissions had a growth 5.6x greater. That's the opposite of expert predictions.
Accurate and fair to say, modern warming is not exceptional.
Regardless of this unequivocal and indisputable scientific empirical evidence, which challenges the "consensus" global warming orthodoxy, the mainstream media chooses to gleefully push the latest discredited propaganda regarding the "hottest year ever" - an event that has been happening since the end of Little Ice Age, with an astoundingly great frequency.
Facts rule. The 'PR' exaggerations and embellishments are just anti-science dressed in those old fearmongering clothes. One's got to sell newspapers or web page hits, no?
Note: Source for annual NOAA temperatures used in Excel to calculate and plot 25-year temperature changes and linear trends. For the earlier period (1920-1944), 1919 was used as the base year; for the modern era, 1989 was the base year.
