C3

Climate Science Fraud? Fabricating Higher Sea Levels & Acceleration By 'Cooking-The-Books'

The fabrication-fraud-like technique of increasing both regional and global warming has many examples, including several that 'C3' has addressed.

It's no surprise then that scientists are also fabricating a faster rate of sea level increase along with higher sea levels.

Basically, this HockeySchtick article reveals that taxpayer funded scientists are literally figuratively cooking-the-books using satellite altimeter data. The accompanying sea level chart depicts the extent of the fabrication-bogosity.

This revelation of (acceptable?) "climate science" at University of Colorado just provides more proof that government supported scientists in climate research should not be trusted, primarily due their clear cut affection for agenda-science.

With climate science, being a skeptic and cynic is proving to be the best approach.

Although science fraud-like-bogosity appears to dominate climate research, the activity of bogus science is not an exclusive to climate science, unfortunately.

Previous sea-level articles.

The IPCC's 'AR5': Expert Uncovers Absurd Cherry-Picking "Climate Science" In Latest Report

Steve McIntyre analyzed the Southern Hemisphere historical temperature information contained in the recent IPCC AR5 report and documents an amazing discovery.

Extreme, absurd cherry-picking that defies objective, impartial science.

In essence, the IPCC's representation of Southern Hemisphere temperature changes is biased with unrelated Northern Hemisphere paleo-temperature datasets; the IPCC ignores established, widely accepted Southern datasets such as Antarctica's ice core evidence, as displayed here (click on image to enlarge).

Not only does the IPCC avoid utilization of the the inconvenient Vostok ice core temperatures that reveal the Medieval Warming period for the Southern latitudes, they chose to use Northern datasets that have been widely criticized for being error-filled and massively manipulated via questionable, non-standard statistical techniques.

Like previous IPCC reports, the AR5 edition obviously shares the agenda-science traits of absurd cherry-picking, gross misrepresentations and ludicrous fabrications, which confirms the accusations that green-alarmists have completely corrupted climate science.

Note: As the chart depicts, the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has exhibited an overall cooling trend over the last 5,000 years, with multiple peaks and valleys. This persistent cooling trend is also evident from the Greenland ice core dataset. While the polar regions share many temperature change similarities, their warming/cooling phases occur during different years/decades with different amplitude - i.e., narrowly speaking, perfect synchronization of polar climates does not exist.

Additional climate-history and historical temperature charts.

Extreme Cherry-Picking "Science" Exposed In Newest Alarmist Arctic Climate Study - Moss-Picking Debunked, Unequivocally

Back in 2008, Climate Sanity did an article about Arctic warming, creating the adjacent top graphic that highlights 14 different peer reviewed studies. (click to enlarge image)

The light pink areas represent large geographical areas where the past Arctic climate, over the last 3,000 to 9,000 years, was warmer than today's.

Recently, 'C3' posted an article regarding 15 studies that determined the Medieval Arctic warming was greater than the current warming.

In addition, the adjacent bottom graphic depicts both past and modern tree lines and permafrost boundaries. This inconvenient empirical evidence confirms that in the past trees were able to grow farther north (due to a warmer northern climate) than our modern period; also, today's permafrost boundary stretches farther south due to a modern climate that is cooler.

Despite this preponderance of empirical evidence and multiple peer reviewed studies about the present and past Arctic climate, a new moss (lichen) study by Miller et al. 2013 makes a bogus claim that today's Arctic temperatures are warmer than the past 44,000 to 120,000 years.

This bogus claim has all sorts of scientific lameness, falsehoods and wild misrepresentations associated with it, as described by experts here, here, here and here.

The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim.

As this latest study's bogus science affirms, anti-science cherry-picking remains alive and well in "scientific" circles pushing the discredited catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Just another example of 'the ends justify the means' style of agenda-science.

And BTW, the top graphic does not include the recent Baffin Island icecap study and another Island study using lake sediment cores, which both confirm that the modern Arctic temps are cooler than the past.

Additional climate-history and peer-reviewed articles.

UK Govt Reveals Incredible Land Waste From Solar & Wind Energy Facilities Versus Single Nuclear Plant

An amazing inadvertent admission by the UK government recently revealed just how much land was required to replace a single nuclear plant with renewable solar and wind options.

The land-needed differential is simply staggering - some 300 to 580 times larger for solar and wind production (see top graphic).

Back in 2009, 'C3' created a similar type of image (see bottom graphic) that depicted how much land was needed to replace all U.S. fossil fuel plants with solar and wind facilities - based on this analysis. As in the UK depiction, the nuclear option (see green dot) land needed is a fraction of the enormous appetite of "leading" renewable solutions.

The stunning stuck-on-stupid green ideology shown in all its wasteful environmental graphic glory.

Previous solar/wind articles.

Climate Models Can't Predict Squat: IPCC Models Unable To Simulate The Critical 'Wind Stress' Element

First, a generic wind stress definition is in order.

Ocean surface roughness (i.e., turbulence) as measured by satellite technology, is referred to as 'wind stress' in climate models. In plain-speak, it is sea surface turbulence, obviously driven by wind speed and direction, in addition to being impacted by atmospheric density/pressures, sea surface temperatures, sea buoyancy and currents. Wind stress affects the air-sea heat exchange, as well as the mixing of carbon/heat stored in the deeper parts of oceans. Wind stress also has impacts on cloud cover, ocean current circulations and sea ice movement/volumes.

In essence, wind stress is a powerful and critical elemental influence on the world's climate. Thus, to forecast future climate conditions with any sort of accuracy, it is absolutely necessary to be able to accurately simulate wind stress.

As this latest peer reviewed scientific research reveals, all climate "experts" and the IPCC's climate models remain unable to accurately simulate wind stress on their massively expensive, sophisticated, complex computer models.

(Hmmm...did we mention climate models can't predict squat yet?)

Note: Above wind stress map enlargement

Those Stubborn Facts: "Unprecedented" Modern Temperatures Claim Proving To Be False, Scientists Discover

Climate history is replete with peer reviewed research and historical anecdotal evidence that both the Roman and Medieval warming eras were likely warmer than current modern temperatures.

This new study (see adjacent plot) adds to the cornucopia of empirical evidence that natural climate change (warming & cooling) is a powerful force, taking place constantly. This research also confirms the likelihood that our modern warming is more a result of natural forces than greenhouse gases.

Those stubborn facts of natural climate change are without mercy to those who espouse anti-scientific, anti-empirical claims, especially the bogus "unprecedented" claim, no?

Additional climate-history postings.

NASA Satellites Confirm: "Thermostat" Hypothesis Is Kaput -- 3-Yr. CO2 Changes Have Zero Impact On Global Temperatures

As has been noted by publications across the world, the new IPCC AR5 report confirms that the past catastrophic global warming alarmism, relentlessly pushed by the IPCC community, is essentially without scientific merit.

From the editors of the Nature journal comes this scathing comment about the new report:

"Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs. Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."

And of course, there is the amazing admission in the 'AR5' report that those soon-to-be, just-around-the-corner climate disasters, that were repeated ad nausem over the last two decades, are no longer on-the-table, so to speak.

And adding to the IPCC's misery, the latest scientific empirical evidence is not kind. The alarmist hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are similar to a furnace's "thermostat" or a "control-knob" has proven also to be a pseudo-science claim, which actual scientists now consider an embarrassment best forgotten.

Regarding that "thermostat" claim, the above plot of the satellite temperature dataset confirms that even 3-year CO2 changes have apparently zero impact on on 3-year changes. (As previously noted, the last 15 years of global temperature change has revealed a zero impact from changing monthly CO2 levels during that period.)

This chart also includes a plot of human CO2 emissions in gigatons since 1981. Clearly, the gigantic-sized annual emissions are not affecting temperature change, as measured by the satellites. With that said, the exhibited increasing 3-year change of atmospheric CO2 levels may indeed be a result of growing tonnage of human emissions.

In summary, the IPCC's alarmism climate "science" has been torpedoed by its own report and admissions, as well as being completely undermined by the actual empirical evidence. This has not only been recently recognized by the mainstream press, but now the major scientific journals supporting the "consensus" view have finally taken note.

Additional modern, regional and fabricating-fake temperature plots.

Note: Datasets plotted in this Excel chart can be located here. The temperature and atmospheric CO2 level plots represent 36-month (3-year) changes (e.g. subtract the September 2010 temperature anomaly from the September 2013 anomaly). The dark black, grey and bright red curves are second order polynomial fitted trends produced by Excel - they are not predictions, but they do indicate the current direction the trends are taking.

Climate Models Can't Predict Squat: Latest IPCC Models Still Unable To Simulate Monsoons

National, regional and local politicians/policymakers, and those unelected bureaucrats, rely on the IPCC's climate models (and other similar simulations) to justify and make plans for vast expenditures of taxpayers' dollars to vanquish climate change.

Unfortunately, as this peer reviewed article finds, the latest climate models are absolutely worthless in regards to rational policy-making and expenditures for future weather/climate.

Intuitively, one would expect that after the gargantuan, multi-billion dollar sums that climate modellers spent, their sophisticated computer simulations would now, at minimum, accurately forecast the impacts of incredibly large weather phenomenon that occur regularly, such as the east Asian monsoons. Not so, as this scientific research clearly documents.

More often than not, the biggest, baddest, most complex and expensive models have a long history at abysmal prediction skill.

Objectively, the models remain good tools for climate researchers to learn from, but they really can't predict squat when it comes to future climate reality, and should never be used for that purpose.

Those Stubborn Facts: Actual Climate Evidence Again Refutes IPCC's Claim Modern Temperatures Are "Unprecedented"

New research discovers ancient tree stumps that existed under an Alaskan glacier for thousands of years.

The retreating glacier confirms that climate temperatures were much warmer from at least the Minoan period to the Medieval era.

At some point, the climate became cooler and the actual trees were snapped at the stump level, then buried in the glacier's ice for centuries. Finally, the stumps were revealed as the climate returned to warmer temperatures in the rebound from the Little Ice Age.

This actual climate evidence is corroborated by the empirical ice core dataset from Greenland. As the ice core empirical evidence depicts, the ancient periods of the Minoans, Romans and the Medieval era were warmer than the present.

This Greenland evidence also reveals that temperatures have been in an overall cooling phase for the last some 3,500 years, which eventually led to the global glaciers' growth that ultimately would bury trees and forests, such as Alaska's Mendenhall glacier described in this article.

This new research adds to the mountain of empirical evidence and studies that refutes the IPCC's claim that modern temperatures (i.e., global warming) are "unprecedented".

Hmmm...the IPCC climate "science" always seems to be contradicted by those stubborn facts, no?

Additional climate-history postings.

The IPCC's 'AR5': Those Stubborn Global Temperature Facts They Want The Public To Ignore

This chart (click on to enlarge) and the factual truth it represents about global warming and climate change is not one you'll see in the latest IPCC AR5 report summary.

The known "hiatus" in global warming over the last 15 years has been a major climate issue, discussed both inside and outside the scientific community.

Although the IPCC promised to address the "hiatus" in their new report, it chose not to.

The principal reason they did not address the temperature empirical evidence, as represented in this plot of the data, is that any rational and objective explanation completely undercuts the shaky foundations of the CO2-AGW hypothesis.

The plotted data clearly shows that the previous modern global warming has shrunk to an insignificant per century rate, and may continue to decrease over the near future. This occurs while the levels and growth of atmospheric CO2 continue a relentless climb.

Additional modern, regional and historical temperature charts

Evidence Mounts That Natural Climate Change Is Responsible For Major Portion Of Modern Warming

The IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis - and the entire climate change alarmist community - is getting hammered from all sides by the growing research that points to natural climate variation (ie, oscillations, patterns, cycles) being the principal causes of warming since the 1950s.

The latest evidence is coming from satellites that monitor the world's clouds and energy inflows.

As the adjacent charts depict (information derived from the RSS and CERES satellite datasets) at least one-third of ocean heating could be explained by the simple change in cloud cover over the oceans for a recent 20-year span.

Combine this natural cloud-induced warming with other earthly/cosmic/solar factors, which also would contribute to the modern warming trend, and it does not leave much of the recent modern warming being a direct result of the IPCC's evil CO2 mantra.

The IPCC's AR5 'Modern-Global-Warming-That-Stalled' Appears To Be Less and Less A Result of CO2

It has been widely noted across the entire blogosphere (and even the mainstream press outlets) that the IPCC AR5 summary report avoided the very uncomfortable truth that modern global warming has gone literally AWOL over the last 15+ years, and the associated IPCC climate models' spectacular failure to predict this non-global warming environment.

Understandably, the IPCC's political bureaucrats don't want to shine a light on their previously claimed "irreversible", "incontrovertible", "irrefutable", "unequivocal", "indisputable", "relentless", "dangerous" and "accelerating" CO2-warming that has turned into the unprecedented modern "hiatus".

The IPCC's lack of analysis regarding this 15-year "pause" was replaced with an attempt to obscure the current  temperature reality with a laughable decadal analysis. 'C3' previously commented on the lameness of the IPCC's decadal 'smoke and mirrors' as did others (here, here, here).

The IPCC's decadal approach to relied on 'decadal means.' There are other approaches, including analyzing decade-end temperatures, decadal-trends as shown here or by examining the moving 10-year (decadal) periods.

(click on image to enlarge, sources for HC4 and CO2 data)

In this article, we look at the moving decadal spans since January 1, 1950 through August 2013 (the IPCC states that at least 50% of the warming is due to anthropogenic reasons over this 764-month period) versus the previous 764-month period (May 1, 1886 through December 1949) that the IPCC infers was dominated by natural climate forces.

From the two 764-month periods, it is possible to generate 645 moving 10-year average data points for both the modern era and the earlier 20th century period. The above two charts plot the moing decadal data points for both periods.

Per an examination of the 10-year moving averages for each time span, there are several points of interest, including:

•Despite the vast differences between the two period's absolute CO2 levels and growth rates, the warming characteristics of the two periods are more alike than different.

•These ten-year curves, and their respective 2nd order fits, visually share similar characteristics such that one could easily and safely conclude that  the modern warming was simply a repeat of the earlier period's warming (note:  recall, the IPCC states that the earlier warming was not due to anthropogenic reasons).

•The 10-year moving average curves reveal that both the earlier and modern periods experienced a cooling phase, then a significant warming phase prior to leveling out to a plateau (a 'hiatus') close to the end.

•The warming phase during the modern era was 417 months in duration; the early 20th century period had a warming phase of 397 months (only a 20-month difference).

•Based on 10-year moving averages, the earlier warming period produced a +0.75°C  per century trend, which is not that terribly different than the modern warming of a 1.16°C per century trend.

•If modern warming were to revert to the earlier warming trend (after the "hiatus"), by year 2100AD global temperatures would increase by +0.65°C. In contrast, a continuation of the modern warming trend would produce an increase of +0.99°C, just one-third of a degree greater.

•When comparing the differences between the lowest to highest 10-year average temperature for each warming period, the modern change was less than one-tenth degree greater.

•The modern era's CO2 level absolute increase and linear trend growth were both approximately 5 times greater than the earlier periods respective values.

•Yet the earlier period's degree change per ppm was over 3 times greater than that experienced during the modern warming.

Obviously, this type of decadal analysis reveals an abundance of similarities shared by the two 20th century warming periods. In fact, this analysis makes it clear that over 50% of the modern global warming could be a direct result of the same natural climate forces that warmed the world prior to the 1950s.

This analysis also directly contradicts the IPCC's anti-science terminology ("irreversible", "incontrovertible", "irrefutable", "unequivocal", "indisputable", "relentless", "dangerous", "accelerating" and "unprecedented") used to describe the modern era of warming. Simply put, none of these descriptors are accurate - they are without any empirical scientific merit.

Unsaid in this analysis (and the IPCC's) is that portion of modern warming associated with anthropogenic factors is not exclusively due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other anthropogenic forces causing increases includes a wide spectrum of land-use issues, black soot pollution, 'slash and burn' deforestation practices, the urban heat island (UHI) effect, poorly sited climate/weather stations, the egregious fabrication of modern global warming by governmental climate agencies and other factors.

Finally, this decadal analysis reveals the absolute known physics of CO2-induced warming: per the actual physics, it has been established that the climate response (i.e. global temperatures) is logarithmic. This means that the earlier rises of atmospheric levels (ppm) of CO2 have a much greater impact on the climate than the later CO2 increases (ppm).

As the charts detail, the CO2 impact on temperature degrees was 3 times greater during the early warming than the modern warming (+0.23°C per CO2 ppm versus +0.007°C per CO2 ppm). This confirms the actual climate science physics, while at the same time pretty much demolishing the fears of the totally speculative, failed and unsubstantiated "positive feedback" physics that alarmists continue to rely on.

Empirical-based science rules, no?

Additional modern, regional, fabricating-fake and historical temperature charts

Another Bupkes IPCC Prediction: Release of CO2 From Warming Peatlands Is Not Happening

The prediction failure rate of the IPCC and global warming alarmists has simply been astounding.

It is highly certain, at least a 95% certainty, that there has never been an organization so inept at predictions.

The latest prediction failure is one that states that as the earth warms, the world's peatlands would release their sequestered CO2. This release would then unleash a climate positive feedback, thus warming the world even further.

As this new study discovered, per the empirical evidence, as the earth warmed, even more CO2 was sequestered in the peatlands - the direct opposite of the IPCC alarmist community prediction. Absolutely zilch positve feedback took place

Additional peer-reviewed and failed-prediction articles.

Why IPCC 'AR5' Fiasco? The Policymaker Community Utilizes "Decision-Based Evidence Making"

The newest IPCC report (AR5) has produced a fiasco of science falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations that is being torn asunder.

In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)

 

IPCC 'AR5' Falsehood: Global Warming Is "Hiding", Causing Ocean Heat To Increase By A Gazillion Joules!

The well documented lack of global warming over the last 15+ years has proven to be a major problem for the latest IPCC AR5 report.

In prior reports, the IPCC has utilized short-term warming as proof that greenhouse gases were the cause, and supposedly proved climate model accuracy. But in this report, the IPCC dismisses the latest 15-year period as being too short to rely on.

Despite this dismissal, the IPCC AR5 report does make an attempt to explain why global warming went AWOL. One of the reasons they state is that global warming decided to dive into the ocean depths where it is currently hiding (and somehow also escaped original detection).

The "hiding" excuse has been picked up by mainstream science journalists without their doing any due diligence on the veracity of the IPCC statement or at least reviewing the actual empirical evidence.

     "It’s clear science journalists need some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures  — not realizing they convert to a mere 0.07C over nearly 50 years (as if we could measure the average temperature of the global oceans to a hundredth of a degree!). Worse, the warming we do find is so small, it supports the skeptical calculations, not the IPCC’s ones."

A number of experts have analyzed the "global-warming-is-hiding" claim and found it to be, at best, laughable. To add to the bogosity, the IPCC and other serial climate-change exaggerators have attempted to hide the real impact of global warming on the oceans by using a 'gazillion-bazillion' Joules to portray the gain in ocean heat.

A common way they have expressed the effect is to state that it has increased by an approximate 2.0*10²³Joules  (or, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules). But when converted to actual temperature warming, that number, with all those zeros, equates to about a total of +0.06°C to +0.07°C increase since 1955.

Laughable, no? This level of warming is barely even measurable and irrefutably indicates that CO2 emissions have barely impacted the top 2000 meters of the oceans.

The adjacent three graphs (click to enlarge) depict the warming that has occurred in degrees, as well as Joules. For more information about these charts, done by experts, go here, here and here.

And their work is confirmed by no less than NOAA:

"For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 10²² J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's."

In addition, the list of articles addressing the IPCC's gross misrepresentation of ocean warming (the "hiding" bogosity) is growing: read here, here, here, here and here.

Note: A 'gazillion-bazillion' is not recognized as a real number. FWIW, a number with 23 zeros does fall between the 'sextillion' and 'septillion' nomenclature. 'Gazillion-bazillion' sounds better though.

IPCC 'AR5' Confirms: Catastrophic Climate Change Claims By Al Gore Unrealistic Fantasies

Al Gore has often revealed a fundamental dishonesty about catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters. His fantasies have an unfortunate high correlation with absurd disaster movies.

Recently, he became the laughing stock in the science community with his bogus claim of a new hurricane 'Category 6' measurement being added.

That claim was quickly debunked, and now the new IPCC report (AR5) has essentially debunked most of the hysterical climate disaster claims made by Gore et al.

Per climate scientist Judith Curry's analysis of the IPCC's new AR5 report and confirming what others have found:

"But the real issue is this.  The IPCC approach, using highly damped deterministic global climate models, is incapable of producing abrupt climate change (beyond the melting of Arctic sea ice, which is  not irreversible even on timescales of a decade).

The most scientifically interesting, and societally relevant topic in climate change is the possibility of abrupt climate change, with genuinely massive societal consequences (the disappearance of Arctic sea ice and regional forest diebacks arguably don’t qualify here).  The IPCC has high confidence that we don’t have to worry about  any of the genuinely dangerous scenarios (e.g. ice sheet collapse, AMOC collapse) on timescales of a century.  These collapses have happened in the past, without AGW, and they will inevitably happen sometime in the future, with or without AGW."

As they say, read the whole thing.

Source of movie image.

IPCC's AR5 "Unprecedented" Decadal Global Warming Claim Proven False By Latest Empirical Evidence

The recent IPCC 'AR5' summary report was essentially an admission of failure for the catastrophic human-induced global warming hypothesis. The admission was blatantly obvious as the IPCC bureaucrats did not deliver an adequate explanation for the last 15+ years of non-warming, plus they were unable to even establish what current climate science believes the critical climate sensitivity measure to be.

As result, the IPCC had to resort to lame, non-scientific descriptors such as "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" that were without meaningful empirical evidence. Below is an analysis of their supposed "unprecedented" decadal warming, that when dissected, is beyond lame. (click on charts to enlarge)

These two graphs plot decades-ending global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The graph on the left represents decades prior to the 1950s, and the second graph, those decades subsequent to the 1960s.

Some observations based on this empirical evidence:

#1. From the decade ending in 1909, there were 4 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher at decade-end (the increase from 1909 to 1919 was indeed very small but nevertheless, it was a warming.).

#2. In the modern era, since 1979, there has been only 3 decades in a row that the average global temperature was higher - ergo, the warming prior to the 1950s remains "unprecedented" in terms of decadal duration.

#3. Clearly, the modern era decades (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) CO2 levels jumped dramatically, approximately 50 points, which is over 6 times greater than the CO2 increase during the pre-1950s decades (1920s, 1930s, 1940s)

#4. If the warming trend of the early 20th century had continued (it didn't) until the end of the 21st century (2099), global temperatures would have increased by +1.92°C; yet despite the huge modern era CO2 spike, if the warming trend represented by the last 3 decades continued (it won't), the increase by 2099 would only be +1.72°C.

#5. The IPCC states that prior to 1950 any global warming was due to natural forces - thus, the +0.41°C decadal increase during the early 20th century was due entirely to natural climate forces.

#6. The IPCC states that the modern warming decadal warming, +0.55°C, was at least 50% caused by humans - thus, it is highly likely that natural climate forces were responsible for the other 50%, say a +0.27°C of the modern warming.

#7. If only half of the modern decadal warming is due to human influences, then it is also likely that the human-caused linear trend would represent a warming rate of only +0.89°C, half the modern 3-decade full-linear trend rate of 1.78°C/century.

#8. Put another way, the pre-1950, the all-natural decadal trend rate of +1.30°C exceeds the +0.89°C modern decadal trend attributed to anthropogenic forces (including land-use, the UHI effect, and of course, greenhouse gases).

#9. If one assumes that the modern decadal warming in reality was simply a cyclical repeat of the early 20th century decades of natural warming, then in actuality, at best, the gigantic increases of CO2 levels were only responsible for maybe a mere +0.14°C increase (+0.55°C - +0.41°C = +0.14°C) over the 3 decades ending in 2009.

Summary: After 7 years of research and billions of dollars on the 'AR5' report, the best that the IPCC can come up with is the thin gruel of "unprecedented" decadal warming, which when examined closely, is a false representation of the makeup, duration and the size of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. Since the last 15 years have proven that natural climate forces simply overwhelm the CO2 impact, the likelihood that modern decadal warming is more a result of natural (non-human) climate forces is the more probable "95% certainty".

Note: Data sources for above Excel charts can be found here.