C3

The Last 30 Years U.S. Climate Warming: It's Not Unprecedented. It's Not A Crisis

Various institutions, politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, and legacy mainstream news outlets have long been trying to convince Americans that we are facing an existential crisis because of unprecedented climate warming - due to our lifestyle's CO2 emissions. Yet Americans remain skeptical, and for good reason.

The below chart (and the other two) is produced by NOAA's 'Climate At A Glance' site. It documents that the U.S. has experienced a warming climate since 1895.

Overall, our 48-state continental area has warmed at a non-existential "crisis" rate of 1.61°F per century.

The majority of warming appears to have occurred during the winter months (bottom spikes on chart), especially since the late 1970s. The warming of summer months (top spikes on chart) seems much less obvious in contrast.

(click on to enlarge)

This next chart displays the warming trend (blue line) for the last 30-year period ending December 31, 2021. The last 30 years have exhibited considerably more warming with a trend per century rate of +5.4°F. Surely this must be the "unprecedented" warming that threatens all Americans with a civilization-ending climate disaster!

But hold on. Despite all the predictions, proclamations, and protestations that the U.S. and Americans face utter ruin from this recent upsurge in warming, the empirical evidence from the scientists at NOAA shows indisputably that the recent 30-year warming is not unprecedented. This level of warming has happened before.

This below chart displays the warming trend from 1912 through 1941 - as calculated by NOAA - which confirms the past warmed at a faster pace than the recent warming - +6.12°F per century rate versus the +5.54°F rate. Important note: Our society did not collapse, nor did our ancestors die off in droves as a result.

And this faster warming period, ending in 1941, took place during a time when CO2 atmospheric levels increased an anemic 11ppm versus the robust 61ppm increase for the 30-year period ending in 2021. That's a 5-times difference, suggesting that the actual CO2 emission-warming factor is not the dominant climatic influence claimed by the doomsday alarmists.

While a high warming trend at any given date might seem dangerous to the average politician or a mainstream news script reader, it is in reality not the case, since short-term accelerating trends always revert to a short-term decelerating trends. It is this natural ebb and flow of warming and cooling that maintains a very stable climate.

For example, per NOAA, at the end of 1941 there existed a +6.12°F trend that would have produced a +4.9°F warming by the end of 2021, if it continued on uninterrupted from climate cooing periods. Instead, the average U.S. temperature increased by +1.9°F for that 80-year span of time. (Within 6 months of the end of 1941, the 5-year U.S. temperature trend had dropped to a minus 21.3°F.)

Conclusion: The known empirical evidence indicates Earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The warming has frequently been interrupted by periods of flat and/or cooling temperatures. As documented by NOAA climate scientists, the recent 30-year warming is not unprecedented. Nor does the current warming present an existential crisis or threat to Americans since future climatic patterns, oscillations, and cycles will very likely temper or reverse temperature increases.

Does The Level of Atmospheric CO2 Cause Climatic-Weather Extremes? Nope!

(click on to enlarge)

The real world, scientific empirical evidence simply does not support the anti-science, fringe claims that the trace gas CO2 is directly responsible for extreme weather events.

And yet, with the recent very hot temperatures hitting the U.S. Pacific Northwest region, the usual fear-mongering suspects will claim that these new temperature records are a result of dangerous global warming from CO2 fossil fuel emissions.

While temperature records will be set in 2021, the fact remains that recent temp records are not a new thing. NOAA scientists have documented past extreme temperature records (and precipitation records too) in all U.S. states going back to the 1890s.

There is a long history of new extremes and events regardless of the levels of atmospheric CO2.

As the adjacent chart reveals, our 21st century of record-setting temperature and precipitation events are not extreme when put in the context of of past climate change and global warming records for the U.S. Note that the 10-year average for both is less than once per year.

Visually, it is more than obvious that increasing CO2 levels is not the cause of dangerous climate tipping points, be it new temperature or new precipitation records. And statistically, the r-squared's provide the empirical evidence that the impact of CO2 on record-setting climate/weather events is laughably small, if any.

This does not change the fact that the world is warming and has been since the mid-1800's. But as far as CO2 producing climatic-change weather events that will end the world in the near future remains without any empirical merit.

It's another case of those stubborn facts that climate alarmists hate.

Note: Source of state records

Global Warming Temperature Characteristics of A Climate Emergency: 1941 Versus 2020

Be it Climate Doomsday, Climate Emergency or Climate Crisis: It's not just a matter of the global warming that has taken place since the late 1800s.

More importantly, it's how much the temperatures are changing over a period of time and the speed at which they are doing so that are the central characteristics determining if the climate is actually headed towards a disequilibrium state of doom.

If the Earth's climate is approaching a disequilibrium, or is already in a disequilibrium of existential climate instability, global temperature change and acceleration rates would have to be unprecedented.

By using the IPCC's gold-standard (HadCrut) of global temperature measurements, it can be determined if the global temperatures at the end of 2020 are exhibiting an amount of change and/or acceleration that are unprecedented.

 

(click on to enlarge)

As these two accompanying charts establish, modern (red) temperature change and the rate at which it has changed are essentially similar at the 20-year mark to the pre-1950 (blue) changes and associated rates of change.

[The 240-month trend rate ending at December 2020 ranks only as the 362nd highest, and the 240-month temperature change ending for December 2020 ranks as the 340th largest, which means that neither are outside the realm of natural climate variability seen before.]

Yet, these similar global climate temperature characteristics for 2020 and 1941 exist despite atmospheric CO2 levels being one-third higher at the end of 2020 versus that of the year-end 1941 level.

And there was not a single, rational politician or responsible journalist of 1941 claiming that the Earth was facing a climate emergency.

The simple truth, based on the scientific empirical evidence: Our modern climate does NOT exhibit the two key characteristics required for an 'unprecedented,' runaway, tipping point global warming of climate change doomsday. And it's not even remotely close to being a possibility.

 

 

 

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used to calculate/plot HadCrut 4.6 temperature anomaly changes and per century temp trends; also used to depict CO2 levels.

Latest Evidence: NOAA & Smithsonian Confirm Modern Era Temps Well Below Those of Past

As many climate scientists and skeptics have reported extensively, today's global temperatures are not unusual or exceptional in terms of warmth.

In fact, current global temperatures are so below what has occurred in the past, scientists at both NOAA and the Smithsonian Institution have been forced to deal with that reality.

Their updated (adjacent) temperature graph, as published in this article, clearly depicts modern temps significantly below those of past warmer periods.

Besides being below those of the past, the graph demonstrates that the idea of a "stable" climate is bunk. The climate is always changing and that also applies to today's climate.

It's another case of 'those stubborn facts' that is so hated by green-activists and wealthy renewable energy cronies.

 

Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Global Warming Are Natural, Not A Result of CO2

(click on to enlarge)

Out of touch, and well outside the boundaries of the U.S. mainstream moderate electorate, Democrat Joe Biden and his fringe left colleagues have been declaring that the world - as we know it - is soon going to end due to a global warming and a resulting climate change apocalypse.

But is that a reasonable, rational pro-science expectation?

Instead of focusing on the major reason of a natural rebound progression of global warming since the Little Ice Age, the anti-growth, anti-prosperity Democrats point to the smaller human related impact: fossil fuel emissions (CO2) from modern industrial/consumer activities.

The Democrat Party's anti-growth, anti-prosperity, anti-CO2 platform has become a dominant party position ever since the June 1988 climate doomsday Congressional testimony of NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen.

It was from that Congressional testimony that the doomsday prophecies of unprecedented global temperature change from CO2 became the lodestone of the party's faithful.

So, how good have those doomsday global warming change prophecies been since June 1988 (32 years ago)? In a one-word summation: lousy.

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C.

That tiny difference certainly confirms that over the past 30 years there has not been an extreme impact on longer-term temperature change despite some 850 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere since 1988.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.

To clear the clutter of multiple curves crisscrossing each other on the first chart, this next chart depicts the 36-month average (3-year average) of each temperature change curve found on the prior graph.

(click on to enlarge)

These plots also confirm an up/down pattern for all periodicities, plus confirms an absence of relation between the atmospheric CO2 level linear growth and temperature change.

Based on this empirical evidence of rather stable cyclical temperature change, plus the evidence from the prior article that global warming acceleration/deceleration also follows a cyclical pattern, it can be fairly surmised that human CO2 emissions are having little, if any, climate significant impact on global temperatures.

Although NASA's top climate scientist in 1988 predicted climate disaster was upon us due to intense global warming from CO2, after 30+ years it's time to admit he was wrong and it's time for the Democrats to stop pushing this anti-science, anti-prosperity, doomsday propaganda.

As usual in climate science, it's just another case of those stubborn facts that are so inconvenient.

Additional temperature charts here, here and here.

Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel.  Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset

Climate Emergency Due To Global Warming Doomsday? Not So Fast, Greta

(click to enlarge)

As numerous 'C3' articles on past warming has pointed out, our modern global warming is not so "unprecedented" as the scientifically illiterate alarmist doomers claim - here's looking at you, Greta Thunberg, know-nothing Hollywood celebrities, and mainstream mocking bird "journalists."

As this chart indicates, in the very distant past, temperatures were indeed at times warmer or match what we are currently experiencing.

Per the peer-reviewed study, across a span of 2,500 years researchers were able to reconstruct the bottom waters of a fjord.

The findings:

"Asteman et al. first note that "the reconstructed temperature range (2.7-7.8 °C) is within the present-day annual variability, documented from instrumental temperature measurements in the fjord's deepest basin since 1890." Next, they point out that "the Gulmar Fjord winter bottom water temperature record shows both centennial and multidecadal variability and has a striking resemblance to climate periods historically known in northern Europe over the last 2500 years." Those periods include the Roman Warm Period (RWP), Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP), Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Little Ice Age (LIA) and Current Warm Period (CWP).

According to Asteman et al., temperatures during the RWP (prior to ~ AD 450) were approximately 2.5 °C higher than the 1961-1999 mean, encompassing a temperature range of 5.4-7.9 °C. During the DACP (~ AD 450-850), temperatures were more variable but stayed in the range of 4-8 °C. The MWP, which the authors say occurred around AD 850-1350, coincided with a grand solar maximum with water temperatures ranging between 5.4 and 7.6 °C. Thereafter, temperatures cooled once again during the LIA, with bottom water temperature averaging 2-3 °C lower than the instrumental 1961-1999 temperature mean and hovering between a range of 2.9 to 6.6 °C.Finally, at the end of the record, temperatures warmed up again. However, Asteman et al. report that the contemporary warming of the 20th century "does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective and is of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly."

Of course, all that past warming was due to normal climatic oscillations and fluctuations within various cycles. This past warming had nothing to do with CO2 and other emitted greenhouse gases.

And just as occurred in the past, it is highly likely that a major portion of the warming since the Little Ice Age is also natural.

Additional historical temperature charts.

CO2's Continental Impact On Extreme Temperatures Over Last Decade

(click on image to enlarge)

Amazingly, the impact has been zilch on each continent's and hemisphere's hottest and coldest temperature extremes.

Based on the doomsday hysteria, one would expect every continent to be reaching an unprecedented, new extreme hot temperature record every single year.

But alas, per the empirical records through the end of 2019, there has been no individual continental 'hottest' temperature record surpassed since 1982 - maybe matched since then, but not surpassed.

Way back in 1982, the continent of Antarctica set a new hottest record temperature of +67.2°F.

And the world's 1913 single hottest temperature ever of 134.0°F has yet to be broken or even matched.

As far as the 'coldest' temperature record, the last time a new record was set took place during 1983, again on the continent of Antarctica. That 1983 coldest low reached a -128.6°F.

So, after another decade of hysterical screaming by doomsday alarmists about "unprecedented" warming, the experts confirm - using empirical evidence - that the world is not "burning up" due to the hundreds of billions of tonnes of 'evil' fossil fuel CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. Nor has all that CO2 caused even lower extremes of cold temperatures.

It's another case of those stubborn facts debunking the very fake narrative of a climate change doomsday existential threat.

Note: Global temperature extremes by geological continent can be located here and here. (The WMO lists both Israel and Greenland as part of Europe, which is purely a political decision, not based on the actual geology of continents. Geologically, Greenland is part of the North American continent and Israel sits on the western portion of the Asian continent.)

2019: Was It An Unprecedented Doomsday Summer In Europe?

No, it was not. And another alarmist doomsday claim bites the dust.

As with everything in climate change, nothing is unprecedented. The warm and dry Europe summers over the last two years are no exception.

Per this article, scientists examined evidence using dendroclimatology techniques and concluded that the Medieval Warming Period produced similar high temperatures and droughts in northern Germany some 1,000 years ago. And the result was most definitely not a climate doomsday event

As it happens, the High Middle Ages took place 1,000 years ago during this time of a milder and warmer climate. The better climate was key to producing a more robust civilization with impressive population gains, coupled with greater agriculture opportunity and capabilities that helped stimulate economic markets and trade. 

Of course, nothing lasts forever in nature, and as the climate made its move into the cooling period known as the Little Ice Age, the great societal gains of the Climate Optimum either stagnated or were vastly decreased across a wide swath of Europe.

These same scientists also investigated the doomsday claim that Germany's wonderful forests would be devastated by today's warming and drier conditions.

Their findings contradicted the alarmist claims.

"The authors prove once again that our forests are growing much faster today than in the past, because agriculture (also traffic & industry) provides them with a lot of fixed nitrogen (ammonium salts). The modestly increased CO2 content of today’s air also allows the trees to open the stomata of the leaves for a shorter period of time, thus limiting water losses. In other words, our industrial civilization is considerably HELPING the forest by supplying it with building materials and even water indirectly."

Another Study and Another Blow To Consensus "Fact" That Modern Climate Warming Is Unprecedented

Study after study has provided a multiplicity of evidence that the modern 21st century warming is not unprecedented, much to the chagrin and angst of elite alarmists and doomsday claimants.

Now we have a recent peer-reviewed study that examines 2,000 years of temperatures, which clearly reveals a past that indeed was warmer than present (see adjacent chart).

"Aside from the obvious millennial-scale climate oscillation seen in the temperature reconstruction, it is important to point out that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures on the southern Tibetan Plateau (STP). As indicated by the horizontal red line depicting the current temperature, there have been multiple times during the past two millennia when temperatures were warmer than present, including the 400 year period from 850-1250 AD, despite their being 50% less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. Because of this fact, it is clear that rising atmospheric CO2 is having little, if any, effect on current STP temperatures witnessed during the Current Warm Period."

"But if not CO2, what is or could be the cause of the 20th century warming? Based on additional analyses performed by Guo et al., it was their conclusion that changes in solar irradiance "played the most important role in influencing the climatic variabilities over the STP on a multi-centennial timescale.""

Conclusion: Mainstream media, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood celebrities continue to spread consensus anti-science claims in regards to the current global warming facts.

Those Stubborn Facts: Research Indicates That CO2 Emissions Have Zero Impact On Temperatures In Central Asia

A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions.

Central Asia represents a large swath of the globe's land area where one would expect that the "powerful" temperature impact of humanity's CO2 would be rather robust.

Although the area exhibited warming in the 20th century, it is not much different than earlier warming from periods centuries ago (see graph at bottom).

And there has been a recent late 20th century cooling that is attributed to natural factors.

"[T]he recent cool-moist period from 1985 to 2000 has been related to the Arctic Oscillation...During this recent cool-moist period, ice mass accumulation of the glaciers in the Russian Altai Mountains was observed and Narozhniy and Zemtsov (2011) connected this phenomenon to annual precipitation increased by 8% – 10% especially in winter and spring (April-May) as a result of a strengthening of the zonal circulation over the Altai Mountains.”

Conclusion: Those stubborn facts again get in the way of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doomsday claims. Central Asia's warming and cooing during both the past and modern era look to be more a function of natural volcano variations and ocean oscillations.

(click on to enlarge)

Settled Science? Only 12 Years Until U.S.A. Is Burnt To A Crisp From #CO2 #GlobalWarming & #Climate Change?

(click on to enlarge)

Does @AOC's prediction that we are all going to fry within 12 years because of CO2 emissions have any basis in empirical reality? (Or, for that matter, does her #GreenNewDeal utopia?)

Here is a chart from the NOAA National Centers For Environmental Information. It is a plot of the maximum temperatures for the hottest U.S. month - July - going back to 1895.

The trend line (blue line) plotted by NOAA reveals that maximum temperatures in July have been on a declining trend of -0.07°F per century since 1914 through July 2018.

And if the exact same NOAA plot was done for August maximum temperatures - the 2nd hottest month for U.S. summers - there is a declining trend of -0.26°F per century since 1928.

Unequivocally, the recent maximum temperatures over the most recent 5 years, during the two hottest months of summer, are not unprecedented.

Below is a table of the 10 hottest months since 1895, along with the respective global atmospheric CO2 level at the time. The lack of correlation between hottest years and CO2 is striking.

Clearly, all the human CO2 emissions produced during the modern era have not significantly changed the overall trend of maximum temperatures since the early 20th century.

Conclusion: The AOC climate change fearmongering, along with her fellow Green New Deal Democrats', is a narrative without any empirical evidence. The narrative that U.S. adults, children, and grandchildren will to survive in a 'living hell' that will destroy our society within the next 12 years is highly, highly unlikely. Per the evidence presented in the chart and table, we have survived warmer temperatures in the past, and will do so in the future because we've adapted and can now better cope with both higher and lower temperatures (thank the modern advances in technology, engineering, medicine, and food production and they will continue).

Note: Trend lines are not predictions. They provide a sense of direction from the past to a specific endpoint, but they provide absolutely no proof of what will take place in the future, especially with a global climate that is dominated by large natural oscillations and variations. NOAA web site that maximum temperature plots are available from.

New Peer-Reviewed Study: An Example of Why "Global Warming" Is Not Global

(click on to enlarge)

What many journalists and politicians do not realize is that climate change warming is not global. At any given time, there are regions of the world that are warming, while at the same time other regions are either cooling or exist within a stable temperature range.

An example of the actual real-world climate regime is the South China Sea denoted by the accompanying chart.

A group of researchers from China produced a better methodology to reconstruct a historical dataset of sea temperatures for the month of March from 1893-2011.

The findings from their research?

"...above-average temperatures occurred in 1904-1913, 1929-1948, 1961-1973 and 1991-2006. Below-average temperatures, on the other hand, occurred in 1914-1925, 1949-1960, 1979-1990 and 2007-2011. What is particularly insightful about the reconstruction, however, is the absence of any apparent anthropogenic influence on the 119-year record of SST variability. In fact, there appears to be nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures. Indeed, temperatures of the past four decades have remained relatively stable over the whole length of the record."

(click on to enlarge)

And on the other side of the world, we have the example of a cooling Ireland, which clearly seems to have missed this "global warming" that everyone in media, Hollywood, and D.C. continuously claim - obviously, without ever checking the actual evidence.

But, don't hold your breath expecting either the mainstream media or politicians or celebrities pushing the climate change alarmism to inform the public that "global warming" is not truly global.

 

Latest Peer-Reviewed Research: Canadian North Experienced Warmer Temperature Periods Than Modern Era

Both higher and lower temperature spans during pre-industrial periods are evident in the boreal forested areas of Quebec, Canada.

"Hoping to provide some additional knowledge of Holocene climate fluctuations in the boreal region of north-eastern Canada, the six researchers thus developed a new summer temperature proxy by analyzing chironomid assemblages from lake sediment cores obtained from Lac Aurelié. The new record spanned 8200 years with an average temporal resolution of 45 years."

During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, temperatures were approximately 0.9°C warmer than now; and during the Medieval Warming Period, temperatures were about 1.0°C higher than in modern era.

The Little Ice Age period from the 1400's to 1800's had summer temperatures cooler than modern era by 2.1°C.

"In light of the above findings, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current summer temperatures in central Quebec, which fall well within the range of natural variability for this area."

Referenced article on peer-reviewed study.

Facts Don't Lie: Unexceptional Global Climate Warming In The U.S.

Is there dangerous, human-caused global warming affecting the climate of the continental U.S.?

In a word: No.

As reported by NOAA, the adjacent plot of monthly 1,419 months) maximum temperatures experienced in the U.S. corn belt, a major agricultural breadbasket region, since 1900 is rather unremarkable.

As can be seen, maximum temperatures peak and then they don't.

The 5-yr average (60mth avg.) red curve tells the story: despite huge global emissions of the greenhouse gas, the U.S. breadbasket has a narrowly stable maximum temperature pattern.

And, amazingly, the maximum temperatures of this large region during the 21st century still DO NOT exceed those experienced in the early 20th century.

Conclusion: As discussed in the prior article, [Ed: meant to link to this prior article] unusual and unprecedented dangerous "global" climate warming is not close to being an empirical reality. As the U.S. corn belt reveals, every regional climate is different - they experience major warming and cooling periods for different reasons, at different times, and at different rates, regardless of the global atmospheric CO2 levels. 

Peer-Reviewed Confirmation: Growth of Human CO2 Does Not Result In Unusual Climate Warming

There is the following science consensus: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically validated outside the confines of a computer simulation.

Essentially, across many parts of the world, the lack of warming and the lack of unusual warming - i.e. unprecedented, exceptional warming - confirms that the fear of human CO2-driven catastrophic warming is likely very misplaced.

Similar to the recent scientific findings of unexceptional modern warming for many parts of the world, such as in the U.S., across Antarctica, and multiple other regions of the world, scientists in China have analyzed a 350+ year climate record and found modern warming is not unusual versus the warming of earlier periods in the record. 

Per this study:

"In general, the average length of cold periods was shorter than that of warm periods. The cold period of 1869–1877 was the longest and coldest cool period had a mean of 17.63°C. The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37°C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST."

The scientists also determined that human CO2 was not a factor driving the warming and cooling analyzed.

"Accompanied by significant peaks at 60.2 and 73 years, the continuously periodicities around 49–114 years in our regional temperature reconstruction might tentatively be related to PDO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation...as well as solar activity...The AMO was an important driver of multidecadal variations in summer climate not only in North America and western Europebut also in the East Asia...The 60.2-year peak associated with AMO demonstrated that multidecadal variations in late summer temperature in the NWSP NWSP [northwestern Sichuan Plateau, China ] might be controlled by AMO."

This 2016 study from China adds to the enormous amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that an all encompassing modern "global" warming from human CO2 does not exist.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal: There exist huge regional climate swaths of the globe that have mildly warmed in an unexceptional manner during the modern industrial/consumer era; and there exist multiple large areas that even lack any regional climate-significant modern warming whatsoever. 

Additional modern global and regional temperature charts; and historical temperature charts.

Climate Apocalypse: Is The Current Climate Warming Unprecedented In Modern Records?

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.

Facts Don't Lie: Unprecedented Climate Change

There was climate change.

There is climate change.

And there will be climate change.

This peer-reviewed study produced the adjacent charts for the regional area of the American Southwest.

Although the study was primarily about climate modeling for future climate variability, it was focused on the severe climate variation of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

The charts provide ample factual proof, along with the study's own premise, that our modern climate change is not unprecedented.

Whether it be drought conditions or temperature extremes, the past climate was anything but stable.

Note that the bottom chart shows the modern recent warming (RW) finally returning to the levels of around 1000AD and the extended Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) period.

Simply stated: facts don't lie, and there is nothing humans can do to stop natural climate change; and, the extremes it produces without any help from CO2.

Additional historical charts.  

Fact Check: China's Modern Climate Change Evidence

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.  

Global Warming Temperature Change: Today vs. Yesteryear

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.'

Prior global temperature charts.

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.

Empirical Evidence: Climate Change Driven By Non-CO2 Factors, Experts Find

(click to enlarge -- image source)

It is indisputable that significant climate change is a never ending condition: Earth's climate, due to internal and external forces, is inconstant and variable across regions.

Chinese researchers determined that non-CO2 forcings are the principal causes of majors swings in a climate's temperature, be it cooling and warming. They also determined that the modern 20th century warming, which doomsday alarmists attribute solely to the trace gas CO2, is well below the confirmed warming that took place in earlier, pre-industrial periods.

Their research is based on the empirical evidence of a reconstructed temperature dataset using tree rings from China's northwestern Sichuan Plateau. This new dataset confirms what the multitude of previous studies have determined - significant climate changes are absolutely natural.

This study's conclusions:

"Seven major cold periods and three major warm periods were identified from this reconstruction, which might be linked with volcanic and solar activities. The Little Ice Age (LIA) climate can also be well represented and clearly end with climatic amelioration at the end of the 19th century. The 18th and 20th centuries were warm with less extreme cold years, while the 17th and 19th century were cold with more extreme cold years. Moreover, the 20th century rapid warming was not obvious in our RLST reconstruction, which implies that mean maximum temperature, as a unique temperature indicator, might play an important and different role in global change. Overall, the RLST variability in the NWSP might be associated with global land–sea atmospheric circulation (e.g., ENSO, PDO, or AMO) as well as solar and volcanic forcing"

 

Prior climate history articles.

Newest Research: Natural Climate Change Routs Mongol Invasion of Europe - 1242 AD

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.

Prior climate-history and peer-reviewed articles.

Unimpeachable Scientific Data: Treeline Study Confirms U.S. Warmer In Past

(image source)

The vast majority of paleo-climate studies have been unequivocal - there are multiple past periods of warmer than current temperatures when low atmospheric CO2 levels existed. Empirical evidence, such as the Greenland ice cores, point to three specific Holocene periods of ancient historical warming: the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval eras.

A new research study focusing on the U.S. Western area provides unimpeachable scientific data confirming warmer the temperatures that the previous studies have found.

"In a recent treeline study from central Colorado, Carrara and McGeehin (2015) employed a combination of 23 radiocarbon ages and annual ring counts from 18 Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) remnants found above the local present-day limits of such trees near the Continental Divide in central Colorado, which work revealed that the majority of the tree remnants "were established above the present-day limit of bristlecone pine from prior to 2700 cal. years BP to no later than about 1200 cal. years BP." ... "...has also been found and described in a number of other studies cited by Carrara and McGeehin, namely, those of LaMarche and Mooney (1967), LaMarche and Mooney (1972), LaMarche (1973), Petersen and Mehringer (1976), Scuderi (1987), Carrara et al. (1992), Fall (1997), Lloyd and Graumlich (1997), Doerner (2007), Benedict et al. (2008), Carrara (2011), Madole (2012), Lee and Benedict (2012), Lee et al. (2014) and Morgan et al. (2014)." ..."Clearly, therefore, there exists a wealth of real-world data from the western United States that testifies of the fact that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about that region's current mean yearly maximum and minimum temperatures...".

This should come as no surprise since both empirical and anecdotal evidence establish that natural climate change, with wide variation and extremes, has been a constant for humanity since the beginning.

Take home global warming (and cooling) message: the climate is not stable and never will be - natural climate change rules.

Additional climate-history articles.

Before Exxon (B.E): New Study Confirms Arctic Area Climate Change & Warming Is Natural

Radical-green, progressive Democrats are now resorting to intimidation and inquisition tactics to force others into conformity with their anti-science regarding climate change. Due to their failing miserably in winning the actual science debate, they turn to coercion on those whom disagree.

Unfortunately, they conveniently ignore (or are unaware) the empirical evidence that climate change is a constant, which has produced ancient and geological era extremes in weather and temperatures - extremes that science has confirmed with a cornucopia of peer-reviewed research.

These extremes even took place eons 'Before Exxon' (BE), the fossil fuel giant that Democrats routinely blame for modern climate change and global warming.

Above is a paleo-climate reconstruction from this study for northern Greenland. It clearly depicts the swings in 'BE' climate change from the warming of the MCA (medieval climate anomaly) to the cooling of the LIA (little ice age) and the extreme warming during the early 20th century (ETCW) from the 1920s to 1940s.

The study's author's make the following comments regarding the δ¹⁸O proxy:

"The δ¹⁸O values of the 20th century are comparable to the medieval period but are lower than that about AD 1420.  …. The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland."

Each of these extremes shown are a result of natural internal/external forcings prior to the gigantic consumer/industrial influx of human CO2 emissions starting post-1950.

Per the abundance of climate empirical research, blaming Exxon and other fossil fuel entities for global warming is simply anti-scientific. Climate change, including that of the late 20th century, does not require a change in CO2 - a trace atmospheric gas -to happen.

Additional historical-climate charts.

Accelerating, Extreme Global Warming? Another Example of It Being AWOL

A group of scientists who researched past climate conditions near the coast of Japan made an interesting discovery.

As the article reports, the climate in that area has not experienced any of the hypothetical CO2-caused warming that "experts" claim is global, extreme and accelerating.

The chart associated with the peer-reviewed study makes it pretty clear that dangerous and unprecedented warming is absent from this part of the world.

The study's authors used tree-ring samples from Japan and Russia. Their proxy reconstruction even has a fitted trend (see red curve) that suggests temperatures there seem cyclical and being driven by natural cyclical forces. Those are thought to include ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. 

When one thinks about what is reported in this study, it is amazing what scientists can unexpectedly discover from research and analysis when using non-thermometer climate measurements, such as tree rings. These proxies usually come from widely scattered locations, with probably a rather sparse number of samples. In addition, tree rings don't provide a daily or monthly climate recording, unlike thermometer instruments. Yet, at the end of the day, scientists can produce a temperature record and trends over extended periods from an exceptionally low minimum of datapoints, and then their results are widely accepted by the climate science community.

Sometimes one wonders about these studies. 

That said, these scientists identified another region of the world where dangerous and extreme warming rates are AWOL.

Additional historical charts.

NOAA Research Confirms The Dominance of Natural Climate Change: 1935 vs 2016

(click on charts to enlarge)

The extremist green movement is the principal driver behind the story that recent climate change is the result of humans - more specifically, the result of consumer/industrial fossil fuel emissions.

Indeed, the fringe greens claim that modern global warming is solely caused by CO2 from coal, oil and gas combustion. Plus, they claim that natural climate change has had almost zero influence on temperature changes over the past 30 years.

Yet, the empirical evidence from NOAA does not support those claims. In fact, one could surmise that the greens' claims are refuted in many instances.

Using the U.S. temperature dataset from NOAA, which represents evidence from the most comprehensive climate reporting system in the world, a reality-based version of past and present temperature change emerges.

[Ed: The US dataset is considered by experts to be the best instrumental northern hemisphere proxy of climate change available. The longest instrumental northern hemisphere proxy is the CET dataset from the UK, which represents a much narrower band of geography.]

Most recently, we know that the super El Nino produced a 3-month winter period (Dec-Feb) that reached its highest winter average ever by the end of Feb. 2016. And amazingly, using a larger subset of the same dataset, the 5-year temperature trend ending Feb. 2015 is actually negative, cooling at -3.5°F/century rate for 12-month periods.

Now, the 3-month warming event and 5-year trends are absolutely worthless as predictive tools, but for comparison purposes they can be instructive. For example, the 5-year trend ending in February 1935 was an extreme +28.6°F/century versus that recent -3.5°F/century trend.

Those 5-year periods are the first instructive clue that the early 20th century climate change was extremely powerful, without any influence from large CO2 emissions. The significantly higher early climate warming rates versus modern warming are not only unexplained by experts, but also by the computer climate models that have become known for being utter flops.

This has resulted in a lot of embarrassing hand-waving distractions and "don't look behind that curtain" responses. 

Expanding on the comparison of natural versus modern warming rates, the chart on the left plots various per-century trends for US temperatures ending February 1935 (red curve) versus those periods ending February 2016 (aqua curve).

Note that in all cases (5yr, 10yr, 15yr, 20yr, 25yr and 30yr) the warming trends of the early 20th century natural climate change ending on Feb. 1935 exceed (sometimes by a lot) the modern warming trends ending Feb. 2016.

How can this be one might ask?

Well, in a nutshell, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is at the center of modern climate-doomsday scenarios, cannot explain the powerful warming of the past. The AGW hypothesis essentially ignores the relevance, the strength and the significance of all natural climate change resulting from internal and external forces.

Thus, as previously mentioned, "experts" and computer simulated predictions have egregiously failed.

The AGW hypothesis is driven by the assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels produce the rapid accelerating warming trends that are so feared. However, if CO2 was the sole cause of global warming, then the chart on the right would be the supporting evidence, except it isn't.

The chart on the right plots changes in CO2 atmospheric levels for the the two comparison periods. Visually, the periods ending on Feb. 1935 and Feb. 2016, reveal the huge disconnect between the AGW hypothesis of CO2 climate warming and the actual evidence.

Over the last 30 years, the modern change in CO2 ppm levels is over 5 times greater than that experienced spanning the 30 years ending in Feb. 1935. Yet, as noted before, major period warming rates for the early 20th century easily exceed those of the modern CO2 "doomsday" era.

This past U.S. climate experience of extreme warming provides unequivocal evidence that natural climate change is variable and strong enough to easily explain the milder modern warming trends over the last 30 years.

In addition, this NOAA dataset also makes it perfectly clear that global climate change is not some simple linear function of human greenhouse gases, as proposed by low-information elites and media. On top of that, it is apparent that the greens' global warming is not really "global" for huge chunks of geography and populace at given times. (related: recent NOAA global dataset analysis)

As an aside, the press is constantly spreading the meme of the 'warmest', be it warmest day, month, quarter, year, decade and etc. Many times what they report is true in one sense but they forget to mention that it has been warming since the Little Ice Age. And today's reporters conveniently fail to mention that reporters of the 1930s' were saying the same for their period of extreme climate change.

Finally, NOAA reports that there exists a minor U.S. cooling trend of -0.7°F per century since 1999 - based on the past eighteen 12-month periods (18 non-calendar years) ending February.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Note: Source of U.S. NOAA temperature dataset (12-month periods ending February: choose 12-month time scale); modern CO2 dataset and pre-1958 CO2 dataset. Excel used to plot charts and to calculate temp trends and CO2 changes.

Latest Research: Arctic & Greenland Regions Warmer In Past When CO2 Well Below Current Levels

(click on to enlarge)

The continuing scientific climate research confirms what 97% of studies have previously determined: the northern latitudes, including the Arctic and Greenland, were considerably warmer in the past when CO2 levels were substantially below those of the 21st century.

The science facts are indisputable, natural forces and cycles frequently pushed the global climate into extremes of cooling and warming.

As this study found:

".....determined that (1) "maximum concentrations of chironomids, maximum occurrence of ephippia of the water flea Daphnia pulex, highest organic matter contents and lowest minerogenic input from c. 7700 to 4400 cal. a BP probably reflect the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM)," that (2) "the highest temperatures during the HTM are indicated around 7000 cal. a BP, when Salix arctica, which is considered a warmth-loving plant, had a maximum," that (3) "comparisons with Holocene records from East and North Greenland show similar immigration histories and similar trends, with the Little Ice Age as the coldest period during the Holocene, culminating about 150 years ago," and that (4) "subsequent warming does not indicate environmental conditions comparable to the HTM yet at this stage."

Additional climate-history research articles.

New Study: Hottest Temperatures For Arabian Sea Recorded During Roman & Medieval Periods

As the vast majority of climate peer-reviewed studies confirm, there were multiple periods in the geological and ancient past that exhibited, not only extreme climate change, but also hotter temperatures prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer greenhouse gases.

This new study regarding the Arabian Sea temperatures during winter seasons adds to the mountain of evidence that current climate change is of a less extreme variety, despite the gigantic CO2 emissions.

And as this other study indicates, that extra CO2 has provided substantial benefits to the biosphere.

Unexpected: NOAA Debunks Myths About Modern Global Warming

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). 

Unprecedented Modern Global Warming? Study Discovers It's Not Happening In Chile

 

(click on to enlarge)

As the preponderance of scientific studies and reports have proven, our current modern warming is not unprecedented. Significant warming has taken place quite often in the past, as well as climatic cooling.

"The 600-year reconstructed record -- dating back to AD 1392. As indicated, the record shows pronounced periods of subdecadal to multidecadal variability. Specifically, Elbert et al. note the presence of cold phases "during parts of the Little Ice Age (16th and 18th centuries) and in the beginning of the 20th century." In contrast, they state that warm phases persisted "in the 15th century, around AD 1600 and in the 19th century," the latter of which they characterized as the "most prominent" of the entire record."

Additional peer-reviewed postings.

Remember When? IPCC Claims That 'Hockey Stick' Graph Proves Modern Warming Unprecedented

(click on graph to enlarge)

Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick' graph, used by the IPCC "experts" as propaganda to convince gullible elites that modern warming was unprecedented, has had its science and respectability torn asunder by a multitude of experts over the years.

The graph's lack of both science creditability and statistical robustness eventually caused the UN's IPCC to throw in the towel and exclude it from future climate reports.

Climate research in recent years has confirmed that the hockey stick deserved the ash heap of bad paleo-science it now resides in.

This has again been proven in the latest study, which shows the non-existence of the 'hockey stick' and the rather similar (yet less) modern warming versus that of the Medieval Period. The study's summer temperature reconstruction is adjacent.

More charts indicating modern warming is not unprecedented. A fantastic book regarding the 'hockey stick' and the IPCC.

Other peer-reviewed articles.

Remember When Experts Said Modern Climate Warming Was "Unprecedented"?

Article: This new study for the northern China Sea is just another recent example of empirical evidence supporting past research regarding the global warming experienced during both the Roman and Medieval periods.

And don't forget, that for a brief period, the IPCC's "consensus experts" attempted to claim that modern global warming was unprecedented. But that attempt failed miserably when it became obvious a mountain of peer-reviewed studies easily refuted the "unprecedented" claim.

FactCheck: Modern Global Warming Is Not Unprecedented Versus Roman & Medieval Periods

Article: The myth that modern global warming is "unprecedented" continues despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that debunks the myth. This study from China provides additional proof that natural climate change is a powerful driving force that produces warning phases without human intervention.

Another 'Oh Noes' For Anti-Science Climate Alarmists: China Identifies 'Unprecedented' Warming Prior To High CO2

Much to the chagrin of the West's leading anti-science global warming  alarmists, China's scientists are not cooperating ... their latest research reveals 'unprecedented' warming actually took place well before modern high CO2 levels and industrialization ... the empirical evidence for natural climate change continues to be indisputable and growing.....

(click on for larger view)

This peer-reviewed study confirms that extreme warming took place in China, at the approximate times that Europe was experiencing the warming of the Medieval and Minoan periods.

Unprecedented global warming over a vast swath of the world took place in antiquity.

It is accurate to conclude that natural climate change is a powerful force in terms of promoting significant temperature change regimes - simply, human CO2 emissions are not required to do so.

"Using multi-proxy records -- including data on pollen, charcoal, phytoliths, total nitrogen, total organic carbon and loss-on-ignition from a 268-cm-long sediment core...The six scientists report that one of what they call the "significant climate events during this period" was the Medieval Warm Period, which held sway from approximately AD 700-1200, and which they say "was also revealed at some other sites in Xinjiang,...which was about 1.3°C higher than what had been the case at any other time over the past 3,000 years"

Additional peer-reviewed studies.

How To Make The World Hotter? NOAA Starts With The U.S., Then Just Fabricates Where Needed

The global "warming" charade is not about saving humanity, nor about saving polar bears...it's all about a non-environmental agenda that is being pursued by the establishment elites and powerful...and they aren't bashful about admitting it...thus, government agencies, such as NOAA, will fabricate anything and everything in support of the agenda.....

(click on graph to enlarge)

The global warming political agenda requires proof that temperatures are getting hotter.

If "hotter," then the public will of course need the government to step in and save them from dangerous hot temperatures.

But what happens when the modern maximum temperatures do not fit the agenda by not being as hot as those experienced in the distant past, earlier in the 20th century?

Well, in the case of NOAA, they just fabricate the "proof."

How?

By simply lowering adjusting past annual maximum U.S. temperatures down until they are below the modern era temps; plus, to provide a little oomph, they raise the modern maximums a bit.

As this chart reveals, NOAA massively lowered the past temperatures prior to the 1990's. The broad black curve is the 5-year mean of the maximum U.S monthly temperatures originally measured and recorded.

And the broad blue curve? That's the 5-year mean of maximum temperatures after NOAA finished with their fabrications adjustments.

Figuratively, with a few strokes of the keyboard, NOAA manipulated the long-standing historical climate records in order to present needed "evidence" that fits with the political agenda.

Unfortunately for the reputation and credibility of science, this style of empirical evidence falsification is widespread, with government climate "scientists" leading the way it would appear.

Note: Original source of chart; the animated gif image was separated into its two frames using '7GIF.' The colors of the the two frames were then changed to be different. Then one graph was superimposed on another.

Climate Antiquity: China Evidence Reveals Long History of Climate Change & War

A recent lame paper by researchers desperately trying to tie Syrian violence with global warming and climate change was completely eviscerated by a wide range of experts...in summation, it was an exceedingly stupid paper...plus, history of climate antiquity provides plenty of evidence that cooler temperatures provoke more war, rebellions and organized violence than warmer periods.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

This chart depicts historical precipitation and temperature reconstruction from northern China.

Overlaid on the chart by 'C3' are significant Chinese events from the past, along with identification of major solar states (minimums and maximums).

The scientists who compiled the precipitation/temperature records and produced the reconstructions had summarized that solar influence was climatically significant for China due to the affect on annual monsoons.

Using Wikipedia, major war/violence/political events were identified and then added to the chart (color bars).

To the more than casual viewer, it would certainly appear that a cooler climate regime has a higher association with extreme organized violence than a warmer period.

The chart's green curve indicates that those periods with less precipitation (i.e. droughts) are more common when cooler temps prevail - more arid conditions, with less food production make people (and societies) rather restless.

The unequivocal and indisputable climate research clearly demonstrates that climate change is constant; and when combined with historical accounts and anecdotal evidence, warmer climates tend to favor prosperity and peace outcomes while cooler periods provide more of the opposite.

Note: 'C3' originally wrote about this research in 2011. There was a recent article at Ice Age Now (and a YouTube video) using another 'C3' chart with significant Chinese events being overlaid on the Greenland ice core temp reconstructions (that prompted our doing the same for the above northern China chart). Wikipedia info page sources: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

US Govt Scientists Confirm: Natural Climate Change of Past Produced Warmer Temps Than Modern Era

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.

The Curse of Modern Climate Science: Seeking The Truth Replaced By 'Kardashian-Science'?

Is it true about the climate warming?...since the incredible revelations of Climategate, official climate science continues to embarrass itself...frankly, government sponsored scientists seem eager to keep the curse alive that is undermining their credibility...one wonders if it due to a strong allergic reaction to truth and objectivity...maybe current global warming science should now be referred to as 'Kardashian-science' in honor of manipulating the truth for a better story...now take the case of the persistent photoshopping manipulating of the historical climate records.....

(click on image to enlarge)

Name a single individual scientist, government official or blue-ribbon commission that publicly announced 10 to 20 years ago that all the historical climate temperature records were wrong, and thus there was a need for all to be altered carte blanche to conform to certain pattern.

That's right, you can't.

Hmmm...maybe because there never was a debate/discussion about a proposed blatant altering of historical evidence.

With absolutely no public concurrence to do so, non-elected climate scientists just decided to make it happen.

It's science on its worst agenda-driven behavior.

Of course, when the empirical truth comes out regarding the overstatement of global warming by govt climate researchers they then wonder why the public has a growing distrust of science and government.

Recently, climate analyst Paul Homewood has had a slew of articles regarding the very questionable alterations of various climate station records. His research has documented multiple instances of "adjustments", from the top of the world to the bottom, with the end result always being that late 20th century global warming appears to be greater than the originally recorded - but only after the adjustments.

An example of his work are the two climate station records in the accompanying graphs. One station is in Iceland and the other in Paraguay. Both examples reveal that historical, originally recorded temperatures of the past were significantly reduced, which obviously makes the recent modern global warming appear more unusual.

This is the "unprecedented" modern warming that advocates relentlessly push. But it is only unprecedented because the past temperatures were so drastically altered - literally, it's fake unprecedented warming relative to the cooling alternations applied primarily to the pre-1970 temperatures.

Multiple articles from the near past have been written about the continuing "global warming" fabrications by climate agencies - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It's not a pretty picture of supposed objective truth-seeking science.

Are all temperature adjustments bad or wrong? Absolutely not, as this and this article point out some merits.

Yet, indications from 3rd party analysis (here and here) indicates that potentially one-half of the hypothetical +0.8°C global warming since 1850 may be a result of the massive temperature adjustments applied to the entire historical record.

'Hypothetical' because the climate agencies cannot say with confidence what actual global temperatures were in the past (or are now):

"It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe."...

Finally, it would be one thing if climate agencies adjusted past temperatures with a one-time correction for any of the poorly reported historical temperatures. It's a whole different ballgame when climate agencies "correct" all past monthly historical temperatures every few months.

For example, did you know that NOAA/NCDC has "corrected" the January 1939 global temperature at least 7 times over the last 24 months? This is the count only when considering the 2nd decimal point changes. For corrections out to the 4th decimal point, it is highly likely January 1939 has been corrected 24 times out of the last 24 months.

And this is true for every single month going back to 1880.

Here's a commonsense suggestion to finally improve the credibility of climate science, and, most importantly, to assure the public's confidence in the global warming reported in the future:

An appointed 3rd party audit should be conducted by a team of non-climate scientists on all historical raw climate station temperatures; one-time corrections would then be applied utilizing a scientifically/statistically agreed upon standard; and, once corrected, past temperatures can never be "corrected" again by climate researchers.

Voila, the ongoing and distracting debate about the accuracy and truthfulness of global land/sea temperature records is smothered, once and for all.

How to pay for such a scientific endeavor? Easy. Take a few billion away from the spectacularly failed climate model efforts, especially since the current models rely on the fabricated temperature records. No wonder they're always so wrong.

Additional temperature-"corrected" and global warming charts.

Natural Climate Change: More Evidence That Modern Climate Change No Different From Past

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.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

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.

Memo To GOP Elites: Stop The Climate-Liars...Crush The Dems' Hysteria With Science Facts

All politicians, bureaucrats and scientists are prone to ludicrous exaggerations, lame mistruths and outright lies as techniques to frighten and push the general public towards accepting an agenda...and leftists, socialists, marxists, progressives and liberals are really exceptional talents in this art of public deception...some very recent climate-liar examples:

"Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face" (Hillary Clinton)..."confronting climate change” is “a duty or responsibility laid down in scriptures" (John Kerry)...“Climate change is so much more consequential than ISIS ever was" (Leading Democrat consultant)...“we are not very far” from the point where climate change should be declared an international public health emergency" (UN's Christiana Figueres).....

(click on to enlarge)

Any political success that is achieved by deceit, hyperbole and hysteria always requires a sacrifice of the empirical evidence and unbiased science.

Yet it is scientific facts and methodologies that ultimately win...it follows that the public can only be mislead for so long.

Despite the extremist hyperbole and doomsday-cult scenario hysteria, the science of climate change is rather mundane, from a long-term view: it gets cold and, OMG!, then it gets hot, with some periods of in-between. Climate change is constantly in play; and humans can no more stop its chaotic version of ebbs and flows, let alone ever controlling a single cloud, thunderstorm, hurricane or tornado.

This chart, from the science journal New Scientist, is a prime exhibit of real-world scientific evidence that reveals how inconsequential today's climate change is compared to all previous climate change.

From the chart, it is clear that extreme climate change is a constant; there have been much higher and lower temperatures in the past; modern climate temperatures are not excessive in the least; and, the purported human-induced, "dangerous" modern temperature warming is only a fraction of past natural increases.

We say purported, because our existence is taking place during a global cooling phase (look at chart closely and note the pale blue areas) which is rather long-in-the-tooth, and at some point would normally rebound to warmer temperatures, just naturally. Indeed, the entire warming since the Little Ice Age is likely to be predominantly a natural response to the prior millenniums of extended cooling.

As the chart's inset clarifies, the modern warming since the end of 1949 has been very modest, being completely within the bounds of previous ancient and geological warmings that have been identified by empirical science.

And the "tipping point" warming has become even more modest during the 21st century:

• The atmosphere has not experienced statistically significant warming since March 1996.
• The oceans have not experienced statistically significant warming since August 1994.
• The globe has not experienced statistically significant warming since November 1996.

Memo to GOP elites: Do not just passively accept the climate-liars' exaggerations, hyperbole and factual misrepresentations. The public wants the science facts; they want evidence that challenges the mindless, ludicrous fear-mongering. Crush the Democrats' hysteria with the real science; and denigrate their junk science predictions generated from the failed computer climate models. Facilitate the flow of scientific empirical evidence and debate - hmm...it's called educating the public, eh?

Additional historical, modern and regional temperature charts.

Note: Added the red and blue lines to above New Science chart. The added lines represent the HadCRUT4 global 60-month average temperatures at December 1855, December 1949 and July 2014.

The Global "Warming" Speedometer: A Solution To Democrats' Clueless Climate-Porn Rhetoric?

Leftists, progressives, Democrats, liberals, socialists, crony-capitalists, communists, politicians, UN bureaucrats, crony-scientists, mainstream journalists and Hollywood celebrities are acknowledged as the world's climate-porn stars, as well as being in dire need of a basic manual titled 'Climate for Dummies'...their statements regarding global warming and climate change continue to be living proof that stuck-on-stupid and cluelessness are in a constant battle to dominate the leftward thinking brain.....

Without going through a complete litany of embarrassing and moronic left-wing climate change comments by the "elites," several from the past few weeks truly stand out:

===>  "The planet is running a fever and there are no emergency rooms" - Democrat Senator Markey from Massachusetts

===> "We no longer need storms or hurricanes to produce flooding - it is becoming an everyday occurrence" - Anne Burchard, the Sierra Club

===> "It's kind of like telling a little girl who's trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there's a substantial chance that she'll be killed." - MIT professor Kerry Emanuel regarding critics of his opinion that catastrophic global warming disasters are today's climate

===> "It’s time for climate-change deniers to face reality’ – ‘They’re fiddling while the planet burns" - NY Daily News editorial page

===> "MSNBC segment claims that climate change could make a real ‘Sharknado’ happen" - a Comcast-owned Obama propaganda outlet

===> "And this, to me, is the most important film [Sharknado 2] ever made about climate change. There is no film, TV thing, special anything, more important than this film." - Actor, Judah Friedlander

===> "A new report says redheads might one day be extinct...when climate change brings an end to cool mist, the climate for red hair will also disappear." - Diane Sawyer, a TV "journalist", U.S. ABC News

===> "NYU Professor: Solve climate change by making people smaller" - S. Matthew Liao, instructor of bioethics at New York University

===> "Weather is not climate, you willfully ignorant fucksticks.” - obviously, the very "professional" CNN reporter, Bill Weir

Now, climate change comments like these have been part and parcel nonsense from the left-wing nutcases for over 100 years. As can be readily seen here, climate calamities are the 'forever' essential fear-mongering tactics used by elites and disaster-whσres to convince the public. (Additional crazed quotes from the "elites".)

More importantly, these common anti-science fear tactics are completely divorced from current climate science reality, as the empirical records demonstrate (here, here, here, here and here).

So, are the catastrophe rantings and hate emanating from liberal, progressive Democrats a result of some combination of incredible ignorance and stupendous stupidity regarding climate science?

If so, then maybe a book titled 'Climate for Dummies' would be a welcome science reading assignment for left-wing malnourished brains. Needless to say, said book should include a chapter on the science of temperature trends, made as simple as possible for those addicted to global warming calamity-porn.

Our contribution to the book will be the adjacent "Warming" Speedometer, which is a very simple visual aid to help liberal/progressive/Democrats put those really, really hard concepts of per century temperature trends into a proper context. (click on speedometer to enlarge)

For example, this simple decile infographic displays the entire range of 10-year global warming/cooling trends in per century terms since 1860. What could a climate-porn elite learn from this simple visual aid? (And help them from sounding like an uninformed idiot...)

• the lowest per century trend (based on 120-month calculations) was reached during 1887
• the highest per century trend was reached in 1983
• the June 2014 per century trend falls into bottom half of deciles
• the June 2014 trend is actually a global cooling trend
• that some 31 years after the 1983 peak of 4.3°C warming trend, the temperature trend collapsed to a -0.1°C per century cooling trend.

Conclusions that a progressive/leftist elite might be able to reach from the simple "warming" speedometer of actual empirical evidence? 

Hmm...let's see...that the approximate 1.5 trillion tonnes of human CO2 emissions (since the industrial age began) has not given Earth an accelerating fever that is causing the planet to burn - that's an unavoidable, rational and informed assessment of climate reality. And also that the world's modern climate, through June 2014, experienced a wide range of temperature trends (which are similar to the historical and ancient natural climate gyrations).   

But as many have discovered to their dismay, empirical science means that liberal Democrats actually have to connect-the-dots, which apparently the climate-porn disorder prevents.

 

Note: Highest temperature trends (per century, based on 120-month calculations) for each decile noted on Speedometer (bottom decile also has lowest listed). HadCRUT4 global dataset used in Excel analysis. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Per NOAA, Extreme Hot Months In U.S. Less Frequent After 1980 Despite Huge CO2 Emissions

Climate change alarministas claim that modern human CO2 emissions are causing hotter temperatures around the world and the U.S...extreme global warming with blistering temperatures is their rallying cry but is it true?...Nope...it's another case of 'those stubborn facts'.....

(click on top or bottom chart to enlarge)

Of course, the CAGW argument has been (and continues to be) that huge CO2 emissions have produced extremely hot weather records during the 1980's, 90's and the 21st century, so far. But is it true?

Well, as pointed out earlier this year, the feared global warming is not producing the proclaimed hotter temperature records across the world.

And for the U.S.? NOAA confirms the same through June 2014. It is empirically true that the climate alarministas fear-mongering about record-setting extremes are without merit.

Case in point. This collection of charts depict NOAA's climate record frequency for maximum monthly temperatures across the contiguous U.S.

Figure #1 is the record of the 5% hottest months since 1980 in the U.S. Out of 409 months (34+ years), these 20 months represent the extreme. (The light blue data-points are the climate records since 1980 for all charts.)

Figure #2 is the 409-month record starting in 1920. These are the extreme 5% hottest months in the U.S. prior to the 1960s. (The dull red data-points are the climate records since 1920 for all charts.)

Figure #3 reveals that there have been zero months in the U.S. since 1980 that have had over 90 degree monthly averages. In contrast, the 1930's had two. In addition, for the period prior to 1980, there have been 57 months that averaged over 85 degrees while the period since 1980 there have been only 54.

Figure #4 plots the 60 hottest months for the two periods. Clearly, the pre-modern era produced hotter monthly records. These top 60 month plots represent the extreme 14.3% of each respective period.

For CO2 context, total global CO2 emissions are listed for each period (past and modern) on figures #1 and #2. The modern era emission tonnes are higher by a factor of 5+.

The evidence could not be clearer. Huge CO2 emissions, and higher atmospheric CO2 levels, do not correlate with a greater frequency of higher monthly maximum temperature records. This is indisputable.

Does this mean there won't be new record maximum temperatures set in the future? No, it does not. But, with that said, it is highly probable that future maximum records and their frequency have absolutely zero to do with greater CO2 emissions.

Ɗaɱn those stubborn facts!

Addtional regional and modern temperature charts.

Note: Source of U.S. maximum monthly temperatures since 1895 (choose Maximum temperature; choose 1895 and 2014; choose Previous 12-months; choose June; click plot button; scroll down and click Excel icon to download data; in Excel, select period june 1920 thru june 1964 and period june 1980 thru june 2014 (these are the two 409-month periods used in charts);and then sort each period by largest to smallest monthly temperatures. Modern CO2 emission tonnes and past emission tonnes.

NASA Research Indicates Pre-1950 Climate Change Greater - Modern Global Warming Tepid

Per the empirical measurement evidence published by NASA, the last 15 years of temperature change is not much different than earlier, pre-modern climate change...tepid to lukewarm is about the most alarmist description that fits the CO2 doomsday-cult hysteria.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

As almost everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees, climate change is continuous, accompanied by associated temperature changes. Based on the common measurement techniques utilized, over the last two decades the globe has warmed.

However, with that said, the last 15 years of global warming has really not been too impressive - so unimpressive, that scientists are debating speculating what happened to it.

In fact, when examining the moving 15-year temperature changes over the last two decades, the NASA research indicates (despite the gigantic modern human CO2 emissions) that pre-1950 global temperature changes were greater.

Yes, you read that right. When examining absolute 15-year changes in temperature, our modern warming doesn't quite measure-up to earlier warming.

The adjacent chart plots 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature changes (i.e. differences) of the two decades 1924-1944 (starting July 1924, ending June 1944); and plots the 180-month temperature changes of the two decades from July 1994 to June 2014.

As the chart indicates, both periods have similarities, but the greatest long-term global warming took place prior to 1950. The linear trends on the charts denote the continuing acceleration of 15-year warming (red straight line) for the pre-1950 era, versus the decelerating trend of our current times (green straight line), as reported by NASA scientists.

And, as can be observed, both the long-term warming and cooling extremes were greater during the pre-1950 decades. Confirming the pre-1950 weather/climate extremes is rather easy - just read the headlines from that era.

Conclusion: Modern climate and temperature change is somewhat tepid when compared to the natural extreme changes during the 1930s and 1940s. It would seem that human CO2 emissions are not causing unprecedented, accelerating extremes in modern weather and climate over recent 15-year spans, and may actually be dampening the extremes when compared to the past.

Additional modern and regional temperature charts.

Note: The above chart is comparing the 2 decades ending June 1944 versus the 2 decades ending June 2014 - both periods exhibit identifiable warming. NASA dataset used for the moving 15-year (180-month) absolute temperature difference comparison and Excel chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

NOAA Confirms: Huge CO2 Emissions Have Zero Impact On U.S. Maximum Temperatures

The UN's IPCC claim that large modern consumer/industrial CO2 emissions are causing maximum temperatures to increase across the globe proves to be without any empirical and scientific merit.....NOAA's NCDC division documents U.S. maximum temperatures are exhibiting a declining trend, not catastrophic "global warming"...

The adjacent chart is a fairly simple plot of the 20 hottest U.S. months, with the corresponding atmospheric CO2 level (black dots) for the respective month.

As the latest NOAA empirical dataset clearly indicates:

===> The hottest U.S. months took place during the 1930s, a very low CO2 period

===> The huge growth of atmospheric CO2 levels after 1949 did not produce the predicted increase of catastrophic, ever higher temperatures

===> The average maximum record temperature prior to 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1895-1949) was higher than the average maximum record temperature post 1950 (the 10 highest months of 1950-2014)

===> Despite the massive human CO2 emissions, maximum temperatures reveal a cooling trend of highs since 1950

This NOAA factual evidence for the continental U.S. confirms what has previously reported for maximum temperatures across the globe.

Note1: My bad. Found dumb error on original chart. Now corrected. No corrections to above text required.

Note2: NOAA U.S. temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above chart. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Additional global, regional and historical temperature charts.

Climate Change FactCheck: UK Analysis Confirms CO2 Emissions Not Producing Unprecedented, Irreversible & Accelerating Global Warming

Has modern human CO2 emissions caused unprecedented, irreversible and accelerating global warming? Convincingly not, per an analysis of UK's gold-standard climate research dataset...certainly, a very inconvenient climate 'FactCheck'.....

(click on image to enlarge)

Regarding claims of "irreversible" and "accelerating" global warming, the scientific empirical evidence (analysis of monthly measurements) comparisons is indisputable: over the last 15+ years, global warming has gone AWOL, which the climate "experts" are mystified about.

Ergo, modern global warming has been in a non-accelerating state, a status reversal taking place since the late 1990's.

Here and here, the scientific evidence from NOAA, when analyzed from a 5-year climate change viewpoint, clearly shows that both modern U.S. and world-wide warming are not "unprecedented" when compared to earlier 20th century periods.

Moving on to a different perspective, the adjacent chart documents that modern atmospheric CO2 levels growth was approximately 6 times greater than during that of the pre-1950 period.

Yet, this immense growth of modern emissions barely produced an uptick in 10-year global warming averages, when compared to a similar time span for the pre-1950s. This is the undeniable result of an analysis of the UK's HadCRUT4 global climate record dataset.

The difference between the two period's 10-year average increase was a trivial +0.1°C - that's well within the range of what natural climate variation could explain. If HadCRUT3 datapoints were used instead, the difference shrinks to +0.05°C.

These differences are meaningless; of no material, meaningful climate consequence; and, totally undeserving of the label "unprecedented."

Climate Change FactCheck Summation: Analyzing 1,853 datapoints of moving 10-year average global temperatures establishes there is no significant empirical evidence from the gold-standard HadCRUT4 climate records that would even suggest that modern-era warming deserves the "unprecedented" designation. Simply stated, scientists and politicians utilizing that adjective are intentionally being deceptive in order to solely advance a political agenda. Likewise, the deceptive use of the descriptors "accelerating" and "irreversible" are also not supported by any scientific evidence.

Additional information regarding the chart:

• From a 10-year average global temperature low, established during November 1976, the modern warming period spanned 410 months, ending during December 2010 when the 10-year average peak occurred.
• The pre-1950 (prior to the huge 'modern' consumer/industrial CO2 emissions) 10-year average temperature peaked during May 1945. Creating a similar 410-month span, establishes April 1912 as pre-1950 low point for this apple-to-apple comparison.
• The atmospheric CO2 level (ppm) growth amounts depicted by the chart are based on these two 410-month periods.
  

Previous modern global, regional and historical temperature charts.

Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above infographic and 10-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Those Stubborn Facts: NOAA's Empirical Climate Records Reveal Truth, Modern Warming Same As Pre-1950 Natural Warming

Previously, using NOAA climate records, past U.S. warming (“global”) in the U.S. was compared to the modern U.S. warming...both warming periods were essentially the same despite the massive human CO2 emissions during the modern era…now an analysis of NOAA global temperatures reveals the same outcome…ah, those stubborn facts.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

The gigantic consumer/industrial CO2 emissions during the modern era are claimed by “consensus” climate scientists to have caused rapid, accelerating, unprecedented dangerous warming, never experienced by humans before.
But is this claim really true? Does climate reality support the catastrophic climate change hyperbole?

Nope. But you be the judge.

If CO2 emissions really matter, then their impact should be robustly apparent when analyzing long-term 5-year global climate warming averages. Simply stated, the differential impact from the gargantuan, modern CO2 emissions on global 5-year average warming should be significantly greater than pre-modern, natural warming for 5-year averages.

But that’s not the climate reality. Surprised?

As the adjacent graph of NOAA empirical evidence (5-year averages) reveals, the alarmists’ hyperbolic claims are without any scientific merit. The amount of modern warming (red dots) is nearly identical to the earlier 20th century warming (blue dots) that took place in the absence of large CO2 emissions.

In fact, the 381-month periods plotted in the graph have the earlier period warming to be just slightly higher (+0.01°C) than the modern warming.

To simplify, that’s totally contrary to what the UN’ IPCC and the major US and UK climate agencies have claimed and still widely promulgate.

For those more interested in the details of the chart’s plots, we move to a more complete description below…to the details!

Why was a 381-month (31.75 years) period chosen? Simple. Prior to 1950, the 5-year moving average of global temperatures peaked during October 1944. That peak was reached over a span of 381 months, from the starting trough low point of the 5-year average that occurred during February 1913. Voila, 381 months.

The modern 5-year average peak happened during January 2007. Working backwards to create a similar 381-month span, the start month for the modern period span is May 1975.

In order to produce a visual apple-to-apple comparison of the amount of warming for the two periods, the prior period’s 5-year averages were offset to start at the exactly same point as the modern warming period (‘offsetting’ the datapoints does not affect the slope of the earlier period’s warming trend, nor the amount of warming).

Although it is difficult to discern visually, as stated before, the earlier (pre-1950) 20th century warming actually was higher – a miniscule +0.01 degree higher, but still higher. That’s a freaking amazing outcome since all “experts” claim the modern era global warming was “unprecedented” and “unnatural.”

So what happens when the period span is changed to 300 months (25 years), using the same peak months as before (October 1944 and January 2007)?

It swings in favor of the modern span of warming – by incredibly the same amount of +0.01°C.

And if we used a 35-year comparison instead? OMG, modern warming just went berserk, clocking an unbelievable, higher modern warming of…wait for it…+0.07°C degree. (/sarc off)

And what if the comparison’s NOAA-benchmark was the trough-to-peak warming span of November 1976 to January 2007, a 363-month span (30.25 years)? Compared to a similar 363-month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06°C higher, which is smaller than the  error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.

Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5-year average warming amounts, the modern era’s warming  represents an increase not even one-tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming – it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.

What’s the essential point here?

Those stubborn facts: Well, the amount of trough-to-peak modern warming is almost identical to the amount of pre-1950 trough-to-peak warming, which is clear indication that the modern warming was likely due to the same natural influences, regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions.

Certainly, one can’t conclude that CO2 does not have some role during warming periods, but NOAA’s empirical science research indicates it is ‘best practice’ science to conclude that the vast majority of modern warming was a result of non-human reasons.

As wise old people would say: “it’s the same old, same old.”

Additional climate change charts.

Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

From An Expert Lead Author: The Sordid IPCC History Of The 'Hockey Stick' Fabrication

(click on image to enlarge)

The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.

Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.

Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?

"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred.  My main unanswered question is:  How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR?  He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D.  It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."

Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.

Those Stubborn Facts: Chinese Scientists Confirm That Medieval Period Warmer, That Solar Impact Is Huge

The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...

(click on image to enlarge)

Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.

And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.

====> "Here we present [Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."

Additional climate history articles and charts.

Per NOAA: U.S. Climate Change Not So Much During The Massive CO2 Emission Increase of Modern Era

(click on chart to enlarge)

Per NOAA's published annual mean temperatures, the modern warming trend for the U.S., since the beginning of 1950, amounts to an increase of 1.35°C by century end.

But this modern trend is just +0.36° higher than the trend that existed from 1895 to 1949. For the records, that existing pre-consumer/industrial CO2 trend was already at a significant +0.99°C, by year 2100.

Based on the official climate empirical evidence, as the adjacent chart depicts, this recent measly trend increase (a third of a single degree) of climate change (i.e. U.S. warming) is claimed by IPCC scientists to be a result of the modern, gigantic global emissions approximating over 1.2 trillion tonnes since the end of 1949

Yet, the prior period to the modern era experienced a climate change trend that was equivalent to a 1-degree change. Essentially, a built-in, long-term trend some 3-times larger than the additional modern trend increase.

And this larger, pre-modern, in-the-pipeline warming trend took place when human CO2 emissions were a fraction of the modern era's - literally, one-tenth the amount of emissions (see chart).

Then there is the whole embarrassing issue of the great climate science mystery, which includes the U.S. climate records. During the last 17 years that span from February 1997 through February 2014, the continental U.S. actually cooled at a per century rate of -1.0°C (per NOAA's monthly anomalies).

Now what does all this empirical evidence mean?

Well, obviously, the pre-1950 climate change was significantly greater than that of the modern era. Again, obviously, the modern U.S. climate change has been way over-hyped by politicians and government scientists when put into a historical perspective, as above.

Then there is the indisputable NOAA fact that the last 17 years have witnessed a general cooling for the U.S., which, obviously, is at substantial odds with the "consensus" climate scientists predictions and the IPCC's "expert" computer models.

When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very "global" or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.

Additional regional and modern temperature charts.

Note: NOAA U.S. dataset (converted to Celsius) used for temperature calculations from this site. CO2 emission datasets covering 1895 thru 2012 here and here. Used estimate for 2013 CO2 emissions.

Those Stubborn Facts: Per NOAA, Current Global Warming 'Pause' Unprecedented In Modern Era - 190 Months Long

Another new study by climate "experts" produces even more speculation as to why the modern global warming 'Pause' has unexpectedly happened ... in the meantime, per NOAA.......

(click on chart to enlarge)

(click on chart to enlarge)

The never predicted 'Pause' has no equal as the chart on the left begins to suggest. This chart is a plot of total temperature anomaly differences (i.e. total monthly change, month by month) since February 1998 through December 2013.

NOAA's year-end 2013 published monthly temperature dataset has identified February 1998 as the highest temperature anomaly month ever. And as the chart indicates, for the subsequent 190 months, that 1998 peak was never topped, despite an average 29.5 billion new tons of CO2 emissions per year over that time span.

Since the modern era beginning with the 1950s, that 190-month stretch is the longest uninterrupted "pause" - simply, this is unprecedented since the era of vast consumer/industrial CO2 emissions commenced.

In contrast, the earlier 190-month period ending February 1998 experienced an almost continuous climb of higher and higher temperature changes, culminating in the early 1998 peak.

This steady climb was supposedly the sole result of the growth of new CO2 emissions (this periods emissions actually averaged some 30% less than the subsequent 190-month period ending in 2013).

Thinking the pre-1998 warming phase was of permanent nature, not transient, the consensus climate "experts," and their sophisticated climate models, predicted this steady warming trend would just drone on year after year, as far as the mind could speculate.

And like so many experts in so many other science fields, the IPCC climate wonks were wrong, spectacularly. It now stands at 190 months of prediction failure!

Surprised? If yes, review previous of 'those-stubborn-facts' charts here and here.

Note: How calculations were done: For the 190 months ending December 2013 (left chart), the February 1998 anomaly was the base point. The anomaly difference from this base was calculated for each subsequent month. No calculated difference during the 190 months was greater than -0.0001. Similar difference calculations were made for the 190-month period ending February 1998 (see rightmost chart), with that period's base point being April 1982.

Download NOAA 2013 year-end global monthly dataset used for difference calculations and plots (NOAA changes all historical data points for each new month's dataset, so 'C3' will retain this 2013 dataset for the near future). CO2 emission dataset can be downloaded here. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.

Climate FactCheck: Is Current Global Ocean Warming Unprecedented? NOAA Says 'NO'

(click on chart to enlarge)

Over the last 30 years, the globe has warmed, which no scientist denies.

Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not "unprecedented."

Per NOAA, prior to the modern era's huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.

This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time (scroll down to the 1940s on this page to learn more about previous global warming).

As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.

And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).

The climate 'FactCheck' summary: the world's climate has experienced a declining ocean warming rate since the 1940s, which contradicts the "consensus" anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, per NOAA. Just another case of those-stubborn-facts ... modern ocean warming is not unprecedented.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Datasets (now with correct NOAA ocean temperature url) used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.