Very, very not likely, as it turns out.
As the adjacent chart shows, the reported 2014 HadCRUT4 (HC4) global temperature with its estimated error bars (±0.1°C) may have been the warmest, and then again.....there are 15 prior years that may have been warmer when considering all the error bar implications.
To add another consideration to the analysis, why should one blindly accept that the margin of error is only ±0.1°C?
Maybe it's time for both the policymakers and public to recognize that the margin of error should be at least ±0.2°C for global temperatures, as reported by the major climate agencies.
As a numerous experts are discovering, and clearly documenting, the major climate research agencies have been practicing a wholesale change (i.e. adjusting, manipulating, fabricating, etc.) of the reported empirical measurements. The result? The recent global surface temperature datasets are now much warmer than originally reported.
And it is not difficult for the non-government climate science experts to identify locations across the globe where temperatures have been "adjusted" up well past the supposed margin error upside of +0.1°C.
This means that the commonly used margin of error as currently applied does not take into consideration the plethora of recent questionable manipulations to make the world "warmer." Put another way: the margin of error does not account for the identified 'scientist-caused' global warming.
Case in point.
During early 2014, the MetOffice replaced the world's gold-standard HadCRUT3 (HC3) global temp dataset with their new HC4. When one applies the more probable ±0.2°C error range to the cooler HC3 dataset, the result is that there are actual years during the decade of the 1970's that would have matched the 2014 HC3 reported temp; and multiple years of the 80's that would have exceeded.
Conclusion: From a variety of measurement tools, it is known that the world has warmed overall since the 1970s. It is now indisputable that the MetOffice/NASA/NOAA surface temperature datasets have "mysteriously" and significantly diverged from the satellite temperature measurements that they so well matched in the past. It is also well established that the surface datasets are constantly being adjusted upward on a frequent basis. Because of these questionable adjustments, the commonly used margin of error is most likely too narrow. In order to compensate for these human endeavors to enhance the "global warming" storyline, the margin of error range applied by policymakers should at least be doubled, if not more.
This is not brain surgery. This is not rocket science. This is not nuclear physics.
This is climate science fact versus climate science fiction (i.e. computer model simulations).
Climate science fiction: For the last 10 year-period, the UN's IPCC climate models predicted greenhouse global warming equaling a per century trend of 1.7°C.
Climate fact: The globe warmed at only a +0.2°C/century trend. In other words, global warming has stalled, paused, or if one prefers, in a hiatus condition.
Simply put, the computer simulations programmed by CAGW alarmists produced virtual global warming 8 times greater than climate reality.
This spectacular failure by models (developed by the "consensus" experts) is well documented. And as of this date, there are over 50+ excuses reasons by these "experts" as to why their billion-dollar climate simulations have turned out to be worthless for policymakers.
Article source for above climate model predictions.
Ocean expert Bob Tisdale's recent article delineated the various warming trends of the key ocean basins.
Previously, 'C3' published an article about the non-"unequivocal" nature of global warming. That article also provided insight as to locations of the much feared "dangerous" and "rapid" global warming - turns out the only locations are the concrete/asphalt environs of airports and major urban/metro areas.
So, what does the actual ocean-deep warming empirical evidence presented on this chart tell us? (Remember, this is the warmed-up data presented after bureaucrat sceintists adjusted the raw measurment data.)
#1. On a per century trend basis, global warming of the oceans is barely happening.
#2. Unequivocal ocean warming is not taking place - note that neither the Pacific or North Atlantic exhibit a warming that is climate significant (in fact, one could claim their warming is likely a function of measurement error and/or those "adjustments").
#3. The oceans are not going to be boiling from CO2 emissions as predicted by NASA's top climate expert.
#4. If 72% of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.
Hmmm...those stubborn climate facts can be sooo annoying.
However, if global warming is "unequivocal" from CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases as claimed, then how is it possible that major components and areas of the world are not warming?
As it turns out, where one actually measures temperature change is a huge factor whether the end result is "global" warming or not.
Simply put, as all climate scientists agree, urban/metro and airport areas are robustly warmer than surrounding areas, during both the daylight and night hours. And, as it turns out, they are warming at multiple times greater rate than rural regions.
They are not warmer because of more CO2 and methane. They are warmer because they have more people, cars, schools, stores, restaurants, planes, trucks, buses, trains, factories, concrete, asphalt, buildings, parking lots and etc.
And because of some very incredibly shortsighted decisions, the majority of climate stations are now located in the urban/airport areas, with most of the rural stations being eliminated. Thus, there now exists a built in bias impacting global warming calculations, which heat-up the actual climate reality.
How big is that bias impact? That's what the adjacent graph helps to reveal.
Take Reagan National Airport in the Washington DC metro. It's warming at an astounding +14.6F degrees per century pace over the last 15 years. Now compare that to a rural area about 170 miles west of DC, in the very northwest part of Maryland. (This portion of the country is called the Allegheny Plateau region a NOAA/NCDC designated climate division). It's cooling at a -3.1°F per century rate.
An 18 degree warming rate difference within a 3-hour journey? CO2 is not responsible for that.
So, why do the U.S. politicos, elites and media believe the world is "unequivocally" warming?
Because they live and work in highly urbanized areas that have the necessary attributes that cause a positive temperature feedback - often referred to as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). They are oblivious to the fact most of the world's populace does not live in these concrete-cocoon heat traps and are not experiencing ludicrous warming where the wealthy and powerful congregate.
Again, examine the above chart. Urban/airport warming locations (Reagan Natl, Dulles, Richmond and Baltimore) exhibit fast "global" warming growth. The two highly populated states (Virginia & Maryland) surrounding these urban regions show more moderate warming. And nearby rural areas (the Appalachia Mountain and Allegheny Plateau areas of Maryland) actually have cooled over the last 15 years.
Importantly, the rural areas' temperature cooling are more in line with the entire continental US climate, as shown.
Why does the U.S. exhibit an overall cooling trend for the last 15 years? Obviously, geographically, the U.S. has a much greater abundance of rural areas, similar to the Allegheny Plateau region, than urban/airport complexes. In fact, it is claimed over 90% of the U.S. is considered rural.
Memo to Republicans: For discussions and debates about climate change, use only official weather/climate station thermometer datasets located in rural regions and/or from satellites. Urban/airport thermometers do not measure temperature change from CO2/GHG climate change - they measure temperature change produced by the concrete-cocoon urbanization. Demand that NOAA/NASA/EPA primarily report satellite/rural temperature changes as a leading indicator for potential greenhouse gas influences. Dismiss with contempt those global warming calculations that are quoted which include the hot airport/urban thermometers.
Note: Source for urban and regional 15-year annual temperature datasets. Above Excel chart only shows per century linear trends calculated by Excel, not the annual datapoints. For the chart, adjusted y-axis to better fit all trends on a single viewable image for the article.
Remember this statement from climate alarmists over the last few years?
===> "Global warming causes greater amounts of snow and cold for the U.S. due to the fact that the Arctic is melting."
If that is true, then we should witness greater and greater amounts of snow accumulating across the continental U.S., year in, year out.
Of course, in the first place, there is only flimsy weather conjecture behind the "Arctic ice melting causes more snow/cold in the continental U.S." statement - it's just another convenient excuse to blame global warming for any and all severe weather events.
And as this map reveals, there is essentially zilch empirical evidence supporting that snow/cold excuse statement, despite the last two decades being marginally warmer. The climate reality is that almost all the original record-setting snow accumulations happened well before 1990.
Why is that important?
Well, the climate lies like this one are really easy to spout, which a compliant mainstream press then gleefully repeats, without even asking a single challenging question or doing any due diligence. This results in the public having a false impression that there must be scientific truth behind the claims, versus the anti-science speculative guessing the claims actually represent.
Ultimately, these mistruths then mislead everyone about the climate science reality, with the empirical evidence being shunted to the side.
The result? False science, and the ignorance of the climate data, leads to bad policy-making decisions and an immense wasting of valuable resources.
And that's not good for the taxpaying public.
h/t for map, Mike Smith, author and weather expert.
Tornadoes. They're dangerous and they're unsympathetic killers.
These extreme weather events are officially categorized in severity from 'EF0' to 'EF5' - with the higher number being the rarest of the killer tornadoes.
As this chart reveals, the good news for the U.S. is that the categories of severe tornadoes (E2-E5) are on the decline. The declining trends, since the 1950's period of lower atmospheric CO2 levels, are indisputable.
Based on a casual observation, one might conclude that increasing CO2 levels and global warming have curtailed these frightening weather phenomenon. Good!
Ahhh...those stubborn climate facts provided by NOAA are just sooo inconvenient at times, no?
Note: During the 2011 tornado season, there was a strong uptick but since then the severity T-counts have subsided, confirming the longer-term trend. 1950-2013 tornado dataset here. NOAA has not yet published official the 2014 severe tornado counts. Severe tornado counts for 2014 were confimed here, here, here, here, here and here. Above plots and trends produced using Excel.
One means to view the lack of climate extremes is to examine an interesting dataset that NOAA/NCDC maintains - the monthly % of U.S. that is either very wet and/or very dry. It has recently been updated through 2014.
As can be seen from this chart, very wet and very dry U.S. conditions fluctuate dramatically. Yet, some 45 years after 1970, the 5-year averages by the end of 2014 are close to the values decades before.
The huge increase of atmospheric CO2 levels from human emissions over this time obviously has had no impact (e.g. correlations of either climate condition with CO2 doesn't even reach the ±0.03 yawn mark).
This NOAA dataset extends all the way back to 1895; and the end result is its being, on average, within the same narrow range over the last century.
Despite the proclamations by those politicians and elites who are readily influenced by moneyed special interests, there is yet to be any empirical scientific evidence that CO2 is a causal agent producing extreme climate change or severe weather events.
Here's a reporter's excellent synopsis of what he found by simply investigating the exuberant claims of the "hottest year" and "warmest-ever"!
Although a lot of scientists (two examples, here and here) were quickly labeling the claims bogus, David Rose of the UK's Daily Mail was the first major newsprint reporter to actually do the journalism legwork that discredits claims by NASA (and NOAA). (Per standard operating procedure, the American press simply reported the NASA/NOAA press releases, with complete gullibility.)
The adjacent graph readily explains the NASA deceit (NOAA's deceit is similar). When the known error bars are added to the reported annual temperatures since 1998, one discovers that multiple previous years may have been warmer than 2014.
The facts are that no scientist can determine the world's "hottest" temperature - due to the statistical uncertainty, the margin of error doesn't allow for it. And it's simply lying not to inform the public of this.
That's why NASA's "experts" now say they are only 38% sure about 2014 being the "warmest-ever".
Yet these government-funded scientists will continue to mislead the public about the climate reality, and most "journalists" are too intellectually lazy (brainless?) or just too complicit to report the objective truth .
Note: Source of NASA annual temperatures. The black dashed line on Excel chart denotes the lower margin of error (±0.1°C) for the NASA 2014 reported annual temp.
As this chart of empirical evidence demonstrates, global warming has taken place in the past, well before the explosion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
And there have been times when earlier warming either equaled or exceeded modern warming. For the 25-year period shown, early 20th century warming was actually greater than the 25-yr warming through 2014.
For almost all consumers of the mainstream press, they are totally unaware that recent warming has no 'chops', so to speak.
It is not "unprecedented" and it certainly is less rapid than the earlier period. Also, the modern warming rate exhibits a 1.16°C per century trend. The earlier period? A 1.75°C/century trend.
Boiling it down to the numbers...that's 1.5x faster warming for 1920-1944, yet modern CO2 emissions had a growth 5.6x greater. That's the opposite of expert predictions.
Accurate and fair to say, modern warming is not exceptional.
Regardless of this unequivocal and indisputable scientific empirical evidence, which challenges the "consensus" global warming orthodoxy, the mainstream media chooses to gleefully push the latest discredited propaganda regarding the "hottest year ever" - an event that has been happening since the end of Little Ice Age, with an astoundingly great frequency.
Facts rule. The 'PR' exaggerations and embellishments are just anti-science dressed in those old fearmongering clothes. One's got to sell newspapers or web page hits, no?
Note: Source for annual NOAA temperatures used in Excel to calculate and plot 25-year temperature changes and linear trends. For the earlier period (1920-1944), 1919 was used as the base year; for the modern era, 1989 was the base year.
NASA's climate experts are on record for predicting all sorts of climate catastrophes, including extreme warming of the world's 'higher' latitudes (the world's polar/subpolar regions).
Certainly for Antarctica, that prediction was simply a spectacular failure.
Now comes information that NASA's "hottest-ever" year/decade has not produced a single hot temperature record in Canada since 1961. With Canadian lands mostly occupying the higher latitudes ('subarctic' starts at 50N), this is remarkable empirical evidence that the predicted extreme climate change is not so extreme.
The adjacent table of Canadian hottest temperatures recorded documents that this massive area near the top of the world has not experienced the natural hotter climate that it once had during the 1930s and 40s.
The table also includes the last 15 years of Canadian warmest temperatures - not a single year coming close to previous records with the exception of year 2007.
Note: Source for Canadian hottest temperatures - just some more of those inconvenient climate stubborn facts.
So, to put the "warmest-year-ever" into some context, 2014 was a measly +0.07C degree warmer than 1998. And that pretty much confirms that a global warming pause/hiatus/stall has been in effect since 1998, as discussed here and here.
Other interesting context:
1. Leaving super El Niño year 1998 out of the calculation, the 15-year increase over 1982 (1982-1997) was +0.35°C - a per year increase of +0.024.
2. Again, leaving 1998 out, the recent 15-year increase over 1999 (1999-2014) was just +0.12°C, for a per year increase of only +0.008.
3.The chart plots what those respective per year increases would turn into if they continued for the 85 years until the beginning of year 2100.
4. As seen, the earlier period had a warming per year almost 3 times greater than the last 15 years - did we say 'pause'?
5. Of course, the warming linear trend over that most recent 1999-2014 span (including NASA's newest hottest year/decade ever) is an even bigger LOL - a trend that equates to +0.26°C increase by 2100.
6. And, this 'not-so-hot' warming over the last 15 years took place when greenhouse gases reached record levels, and as the IPCC documented, are growing at an ever faster pace.
Conclusion: Catastrophic global warming, as NASA envisions, remains an elusive mythical possibility, despite their best efforts at paper-temperature enhancements. The "warmest-ever" claim is mere propaganda without any scientific or climate significance.
And NASA's "warming" over 1998 record? Less than warm spit and within the error bars.
Note: NASA/GISS dataset used for Excel chart.
Using an average of each year's monthly temperature anomalies (satellite measured), the adjacent chart's columns depict the huge shift in global temperatures from the prior 1998 level to the post-1998 level.
According to the state-of-the-art technology used by climate scientists, global warming has been unequaled since this 1998 natural event.
The only year that came close to the 1998 global temperature was 2010.
Although no single year has yet bested the 1998 temp record, the 16-year average after 1998 (including 2014) is significantly higher than the 16-year period prior. Natural climate change dramatically shifted global temperatures up, and they have not returned to the previous average level.
Instead, the annual global temperatures since 1998 have shown considerable variation, but do not reflect a pattern of temperature climate change shift - a shift only delivered by a natual phenomenon (like a super El Niño). In fact, the much researched 'Hiatus', which has existed for the last 15+ years, corroborates the lack of any impactful climate change since 1998.
As all scientists concur, the El Nino/La Nina climate oscillations take place without any human intervention or influence. Their frequency and intensity are a result of the chaotic climate system that makes it impossible for "experts" and computer models to accurately predict. Yet, when a 'big one' does occur the implications worldwide are enormous.
The overall billions spent on satellite technology has resulted in scientists being able to not only monitor these climate-significant ENSO events, the sophisticated technology has also proven to be the best means to measure the world's climate temperatures, 24/7, across the entire globe (99.6%) on a daily basis.
One way to assess the superb and spectacular satellite coverage is to envision over 127 million thermometers placed on the globe constantly taking temperature readings. In contrast, the traditional/conventional means of measuring temperatures by NOAA/NASA/UKMetOffice rely on less than 5,000 thermometers, each one supposedly recording temperature changes for a land area equal to the size of Spain.
So how does that old, traditional method work in order to determine a global temperature then? Essentially, they measure temperatures in a given specific location then use that sparse information combined with formulas to guesstimate temperatures in nearby regions.
Well, that's not too precise and is fraught with errors/biases that have to be constantly adjusted for. That's why it takes several weeks of number crunching and "adjusting" after the satellites have already reported their gold-standard global measurements.
For a good write-up on the difference between the state-of-the-art measurement technology and the old, conventional means, go here.
In the meantime, major climate change seems to be in a stalled status until the next major natural phenomenon takes place.
Note: Excel used with this dataset to calculate then plot year averages.
Way back in 1988, a NASA climate expert gave testimony that the 'high latitudes' (i.e. polar) would experience greater warming due to growth of human greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2 emissions.
This prediction was seized upon by global warming advocates as "proof" that the South Pole's unprecedented warming would melt sea ice and cause melting ice sheets to collapse, raising ocean levels and thus submerging worldwide coastal areas.
Indeed, there is strong evidence that GHGs have risen considerably - even to a greater extent then the feared 'business-as-usual' scenario NASA/GISS experts promulgated.
Yet the newest empirical research completely counters the fears and beliefs of the CAGW crowd: over the satellite era, some 30+ years, Antarctica's ice sheets have slightly grown and the South Pole's sea ice extent is at record levels.
Then there is the proverbial elephant in the CAGW room: the Antarctica region is not warming, per the advanced satellite technology of NASA. Those stubborn facts are indisputable and unequivocal.
Yet, denial of this empirical scientific evidence remains widespread, preventing a rational debate about the real implications of the ongoing natural climate change.
[Update: A reader inquired as to the correlation between the temperature anonmalies and monthly CO2 (ppm) levels - it was 0.015. This figure suggests that seeking a link between CO2 and South Pole temps may be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.]
Clearly, over the last 30 years when CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases were skyrocketing, temperature trends here in the U.S. were significantly decelerating.
The deceleration of temperature warming is also seen in the major satellite measurements and the global land and sea observations, although not as pronounced as what took place in the continental U.S.
When the correlation is calculated for the chart's temperature trends and the average CO2 levels for each time period, the result is a -0.93 with a r2 of +0.86. That puts it in the universe of almost a perfect inverse (negative) correlation - higher CO2 levels seemingly drives temperatures to deceleration and cooling.
We say 'seemingly.' First, it pays to remember that trends are not predictions and don't go on forever - they change. Second, today's negative correlation could go positive in the not too distant future. And of course, third, whether it's positive or negative correlation it does not prove cause.
With those caveats stated, it is absolutely true that the consensus "physics" is not supported by the actual empirical climate evidence over more recent years. Also, the "clear and present danger" of global warming for the U.S. is a generous mix of hysteria, myth and fiction. Science factual truth is not in this mainstream mix it would appear.
Note: Using Excel and the U.S. temperature dataset from this source, one can calculate the monthly temperature anomalies from the absolute temperatures (used the 1901-2000 baseline for each month); Excel's slope function will then provide the trends for each time period; and then Excel can plot the resulting trend columns. This is the annual CO2 dataset used to calculate each period's average CO2 level. 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 the Real Science climate site, this NOAA chart shows why the 'hottest-evah' did not happen in 2014.
Simply, well over half of the U.S. experienced cooler temperatures than normal.
And the warmer temperatures out west were more likely the result of an El Nino brewing than due to human CO2 emissions.
As this map suggests, CO2-caused "global" warming is highly suspect since normal regional weather/climate oscillations easily overwhelm its impact.
And as the satellites report, global warming over the last 18 years is not what one would call 'robust.'
#gop #tcot #climatechange
The above map depicts the greatest extremes of temperatures recorded and officially recognized as being legit by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency.
The WMO has been an avid participant pushing the climate disaster/catastrophe claims associated with the anthropogenic global warming political agenda. In conflict with their apparent agenda, the WMO happens to be responsible for determining the official records for extreme weather events across the globe.
Ironically, this proponent of CO2-caused weather extremes has officially documented the paucity thereof since the 1990s.
It was during the 1980s that the major national climate agencies and the UN began promulgating the idea that climate catastrophes and extremes were abundant, due to the growing levels of trace atmospheric CO2 emissions. The principal claim being the trace GHGs is causing an evermore hotter world, about to go from calamities to civilization cataclysm.
And as time wore on, the WMO and other "experts" were wrong - it just hasn't happened.
Examine the map closely and it will be noted that the 'newest' hemisphere/continent hot temperature record took place way back in 1978 - it's now 37 years later and we're all still waiting for those new temp extreme records.
One could conclude that the WMO's own official records have not been kind to the global warming scare. Amazingly, the same can be said for many other official weather extremes that the WMO keeps a tally of.
This should not come as a surprise though. Indeed, the world has suffered from incredible weather extremes, most of which were experienced prior to large GHG emissions due to natural climate and weather patterns.
With that said, earthly records are made to be broken - they always are. However, CO2 and other trace gases do not guarantee new records...but nature does, which the record books are filled with.
Cautionary note to world's elites and climate experts: Over the last 25 years, the world has witnessed multiple times more failed predictions of climate extremes than all the new record-setting weather events - a genuine exhibition of requisite humility may be due.
#tcot #gop #agw
As this NOAA/NCDC regional climate map reveals, the vast majority of the continental U.S. has not warmed for the last 15 calendar years.
Specifically, for the entire continental U.S, the 2000-2014 calendar span has seen a -2.7°F/century cooling while 7 of the 9 climate regions had cooling or temperature trend stability.
However, there are two regions of the U.S. that have experienced warming trends - on the east and west coasts.
It is highly doubtful that global CO2 emissions would only affect these two geographic areas and not "global warm" the rest of the country. Objectively, it's more likely that there are other micro-regional climatic and human factors involved for the specific coastal state warmings.
Source for U.S. temperature regional temperature trends.
As NOAA is now reporting, the U.S. is in the midst of an extended cooling trend - 18 years and counting.
According to the IPCC and 97% of all "expert" climate scientists, the explosive growth of CO2 emissions and other trace greenhouse gases should have caused accelerated warming, not cooling.
The cooling trend is at a -1.9°F per century for the last 18 years. And since the end of the 20th century, the cooling has accelerated to a -3.5°F trend/century (years 1999 thru 2014) . That would be a doubling-down on 'Ooops', so to speak.
2014 the "hottest" U.S. year ever meme? Nope, didn't happen. In fact, this past year turned out to be the 5th coolest during that 18-year period.
Here is an interesting task for any CO2-centric global warming/climate change alarmist:
Identify from the 1980-1990's a single NOAA/NCDC/NASA climate expert on the taxpayer dole, at that time, who publicly stated this was a likely result. And the billion-dollar+ government-funded climate model(s) that actually predicted this very inconvenient climate cooling outcome.
Double bonus if that expert also predicted this.
Source for U.S. temperature chart.
The adjacent 'C3' chart, re-plots the same information using a simple column representation, plus depicting the fitted trend growth for each GHG group's emissions.
Some key points:
1. From 1970 to 2000, total GHG emissions grew by 1.3% per year.
2. Over the period of 2000-2010, that growth increased to 2.2% per year - a robust 70% growth in the annual rate.
3. Total GHG emissions jumped significantly from 2000-2010, to a historical record, with the combined CO2 emission groups being the principal contributors.
5. Methane emissions essentially stalled over 20 years but then started to increase over the last period.
6. Fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride), which are supposed to be reduced under the terms of the Kyoto protocol, have increased by 8x since 1970 but still only represent less than one-tenth of one percent of all GHG emissions.
7. Although the growth rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels slowed a bit from 1980 to 1990, it's growth started accelerating during the 90's.
8. The combination of CO2 fossil fuels emissions and CO2 emissions from deforestation, forest fires and peat burning have grown from 72% of all GHG emissions in 1970 to 76% of all GHG emissions.
Clearly, and unequivocally, the GHG emissions have not only sustained the business-as-usual (BAU) growth path that so concerns prominent advocates of climate alarmism, but over the last 10 year period the 'BAU' scenario levels for the demonized CO2 have jumped significantly (see top 3 charts on this page)
A little history: The BAU greenhouse gas emissions path was made famous by NASA's James Hansen, whose 1988 Senate testimony introduced the public to the dangerous and accelerating global warming potential of Scenario 'A'. This scenario was determined/computed to be a direct result of not reducing/restraining the GHGs emissions, especially fossil fuel CO2.
From a famous 1988 peer reviewed article by Hansen et al.:
"We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario 'A' assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario 'B' has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario 'C' drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000."
Switching from that history to the present, as the IPCC documents in the latest AR5 SPM (WGIII), we are living in the emission scenario of unrestrained growth - growth beyond the feared 1988 'BAU'. Hansen defined unrestrained BAU growth of GHGs as 1.5% per year, and now the IPCC reports it's growing at a 2.2% per annum rate.
In the opinion of climate alarmist advocates, this feared 'Beyond-BAU' growth means that radiative forcings (watts per square meter) will dramatically increase, resulting in out-of-control warming, multiple positive feedback loops and ever greater and more frequent climate/weather catastrophes.
And these alarmist opinions are due to the very costly and "sophisticated" IPCC/climate agencies computer crystal balls model simulations - dominated by said CO2 and other trace GHG emissions - that have proven to be such unreliable prediction tools. Recall that those climate model temperature prediction 'Ooopsies' are a major embarrassing problem plaguing the current reliance of climate science on unproven virtual simulations.
Just to add a little more context to the 'Beyond-BAU' fears of accelerating CO2 emissions, there is this article:
"Annual carbon dioxide emissions showed a strong  rise of 2.5% on 2013 levels, putting the total emitted this year on track for 40bn tonnes. That means the global ‘carbon budget’, calculated as the total governments can afford to emit without pushing temperatures higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels, is likely to be used up within just one generation, or in thirty years from now."
Finally, in the IPCC's own AR5 SPM words:
"Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute decadal increases toward the end of this period. Despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies, annual GHG emissions grew on average by 1.0 gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2 %) per year from 2000 to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3 %) per year from 1970 to 2000. Total anthropogenic GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to 2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) GtCO2eq/yr in 2010.".....
"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 °C to 4.8 °C compared to pre-industrial levels."
Conclusion: The alarmist science community and the IPCC's worst case GHG scenarios have been attained. Yet global temperatures (i.e. accelerated warming) have not responded accordingly. As one could surmise..."something is rotten in the state of computer climate science."
During a hot June 1988, NASA's James Hansen provided a provocative, stage-crafted testimony to the U.S. Senate.
His message? The world of 1988 was the hottest ever, since the 1800's, and it was due to humans' fossil fuel CO2 emissions; and more importantly, global warming would continue its upward path, rapidly getting worse and then becoming a threat to civilization unless CO2 emissions were constrained - i.e. reduced significantly.
Why his EOTWAWKI message? Because the modern crystal ball - his computer climate model simulations - told him so.
This chart plots the global temperatures using the most advanced, costly climate measuring technology provided to the scientific community by the American taxpayer. The empirical measurement evidence over the last 26.5 years since his testimony tells a different story than what Hansen predicted.
What do the satellites say? This state-of-the-art measurement technology ignores crystal ball predictions by experts and instead objectively reports that over the last 18 years "global warming" has been a non-issue. Despite record amounts of greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere, global warming has not accelerated and has not become a threat.
How bad were Hansen's computer model predictions?
In his testimony, he spoke of causation between global warming and CO2 emissions - the more CO2 released, the greater and faster temps will rise. Yet, over the last 18 years, the world has experienced a very tiny cooling trend, per the satellites. And the "causation"? Well...ahem...calculating the statistical correlation between global temperatures and CO2 ppm levels over the last 18 years produces a negative correlation, with a r2 of 0.0004.
Dr. Hansen does deserve credit however. The first 8.5 years after his testimony, satellites measured the global warming trend at a +1.22°C increase by 2100AD. And the r2 for temperatures and CO2 was 0.21 (note to climatologists of alarmism persuasion: one does not want to make predictions of catastrophe with this statistical attribute level).
The conclusion? The end of the global warming 'EOTWAWKI' as we know it, no? Damn those stubborn facts!
The global warming slowdown (or "hiatus," "stall," "plateau," "pause" and etc.) has been widely discussed across a broad spectrum of web and print publications, including prominent science journals and peer-reviewed research, which indicates a 100% acceptance of the extended slowdown.
The realization and analysis of this lack of significant warming has produced a cornucopia of studies and expert opinions as to why the global climate went into a completely unexpected stall mode - so far, there are some 50+ scientific rationales that have been put forward to explain the phenomenon.
Since climate science remains unsettled, the current consensus is that there is a non-consensus regarding the globe's dramatic deviation form the CO2-centric "expert" climate models. Indeed, there is no shortage of empirical evidence documenting the ever-enlarging discrepancy.
Unfortunately, despite the indisputable and consensus scientific recognition that a temperature plateau exists, and the lively debate within science circles as to why, there are elite green alarmists who claim the 'standstill' is a hoax or does not exist - essentially, that is sheer climate-change denialism by deniers performing in anti-science, denialist roles.
On top of such denial travesties, the mainstream press is trying to change the focus away from the significance of the global warming slowdown and climate model failure to the incredibly small increase in warming that allows them to shout report that 2014 is the "warmest" year ever.
The term "warmest" (as in day, week, month, spring, summer, autumn, winter, year, decade and so on) has become the last propaganda refuge of those who either deny the global pause or just want everyone to forget its importance. Utilizing the terminology of "warmest" reveals the ultimate cherry-picking agenda.
However, since the Little Ice Age (LIA) end during the 1800's, the world has been constantly producing new "warmest-ever" records - it's entirely normal within the climate record, and will happen even when a temperature change hiatus exists.
To that point, both warm and cold years can coexist during longer periods of temperature stability, as multiple global and regional records demonstrate. In addition, it's unquestionable that severe/extreme weather events can take place, regardless if it is the "coldest" or "warmest" year.
As the adjacent chart depicts, rapid cooling and warming climate changes can occur very quickly. The chart plots both the acceleration and deceleration of temperatures (ie, per century trends) over moving 12-month periods (light red curve) since 1850.
Over short-term horizons, global temperatures have been known to accelerate/decelerate at a ±70°C rate.
Since 1999, there have been periods when temps increased at a +35°C/century rate, which would obviously produce some very warm years; while during the same 15-year span, there have been periods when temps decelerated ay -39°C/century rate, which would have obviously produced interim cold periods. This is what the empirical evidence shows.
Now think about that last paragraph. Over the last 15 years there has been incredible shifts in temp trends, yet the mainstream press doesn't report on that. Instead the press reports excessively about a given period being all of 1 to 2 hundredths of a degree warmer than a previous year. The robust alarmist hysteria of "journalism" is sadly evident 24/7.
Okay, back to climate reality and the basic facts: Temperature changes. Trends increase, then decrease. It just happens. It's natural. It will continue to do so. And it has occurred since instrumental climate records have been kept and proxy temperature reconstructions have been created.
Speaking of instrumental records, back to the included chart for more evidence of extreme climate change. The HadCRUT4 instrumental record since 1850 shows some big extremes, which have been identified on the chart as those periods exhibiting temperature trends greater than ±50°C.
Those specific warming and cooling extreme incidents have been identified with the years they took place, and there are some common traits recognizable.
The chart also plots the moving 180-month (15 year) acceleration/deceleration of temperature trends (the dark blue curve).
Clearly, despite all the modern CO2 emissions, all the gyrations of the 12-month per century trends, and all the recent "warmest" years ever, the 15-year global warming trend has not deviated much from the past. Statistically, as of October 2014, that trend is below the median of all 180-month trends that took place in the past ( 1,801 1,799 trend datapoints to be exact).
What does all of the above mean?
Today's global warming is neither civilization-ending, dangerous, rapid, nor quickly accelerating. It continues at a long-term pace that humans have not markedly influenced, per the empirical evidence. Thus, the proper response to a claim of a new "warmest" year is appropriately: 'so what?'
As shown, those stubborn facts of empirical evidence are relentless. The continuing long-term, natural warming climate trend since the LIA has been a constant, yet combined with amazing short-term periods of abrupt change that produce exceptionally warm years and cold years.
These are the scientific climate facts. They are unequivocal, immutable, indisputable, irrefutable, undeniable and non-debatable. It's called natural climate. It happens.
Note: Source for monthly HadCRUT4 anomalies used for chart. Utilized Excel to calculate 12-month and 180-month (moving) slopes (ie. trends), then multiplied by 1200 to produce per century trends. Then used Excel to plot per century trends.
#tcot #agw #cop20 #climatechange
In the previous 'C3' article, we looked at U.S. temperatures since 1988 when a NASA climate expert in U.S. senate testimony made predictions of near-future catastrophic climate change and, of course, dangerous global warming.
As the article documented, temperatures in the U.S. have essentially been at a standstill over the last 10+ years, and catastrophic climate change (with its millions of IPCC predicted "climate refugees") is nowhere to be found.
The end result is the undeniable evidence that America's climate records are non-consistent with the well publicized climate expert climate predictions, and also with the billion dollar super-computer models that experts and mainstream journalists claim to be climate-omniscient.
It begs the question: Is the non-consistent climate reality in the U.S. also found in other parts of the world?
Turns out that the UK climate records, as represented by the Central England Temperature (CET) dataset, reveals the same expert abject failures and non-consistency with model simulations. "Rapid" and "dangerous" accelerated warming hasn't taken place there either.
Unlike the continental U.S., with its abundance of micro and regional climates, the small island area of Great Britain affords less climate variety yet produces similar warming/cooling trends over the recent past.
Like the U.S. dataset plots, the CET dataset is for the full 26 years (312 months through Nov. 2014) since late 1988 when both UK and U.S. catastrophic climate proponents initiated their public fearmongering campaign - the year of James Hansen's scare-testimony.
The adjacent UK chart depicts both the plots for 60-month temperature and CO2 averages. Clearly, the predicted rise in temperature due to higher CO2 levels has not happened - this is not consistent with any climate model simulation that the experts tout.
With a r2 of 0.00 between monthly CO2 and temperatures values, the UK climate records also confirm the legitimate dismissal of the argument that CO2 acts as a "control knob" - some type of global temperature thermostat that UN elite bureaucrats and national politicians thought they could just dial for a desired climate.
And that "warming" trend for the last 13 years that just scares-the-poopie out of UK's elites? A -4.8°C per century...yep, a significant cooling trend.
In summary, the combined CET and U.S. climate records add to the empirical evidence disproving the hyperbole for CO2-caused disastrous global warming and catastrophic climate change. In reality the hyperbole is without any scientific validation.
Damn those stubborn facts.
Note: UK CET monthly temperature dataset can be downloaded from here. CET provides absolute temperatures and these can be converted to anomalies using a 1901-2000 baseline averages that can be readily calculated. The 1901-2000 baseline was chosen since previous article about US temps used that baseline. Plots, averages and trends produced by Excel.
#tcot #agw #cop20 #climatechange
The mainstream media's current du jour "climate science" claim is that 2014 is headed towards being the world's "warmest" year, ever.
Unfortunately, for the media that pushes the hysterical, that claim is actually without statistical merit, since the uncertainty error bars are large. In statistical terms, there's a darn good chance it's not the warmest year.
Then there is the jumbo elephant in the press room that "journalists" flat-out don't acknowledge, let alone report: the state-of-the-art climate satellite technology completely undercuts the world's "warmest year" hype.
And then there is the whole issue of where exactly is all this "dangerous," "out-of-control" warming taking place. For example, is it happening here in the U.S.?
Based on the multitude of anti-science, exaggerated "warmest-year-ever" paragraphs being produced by American reporters, one would think the good citizens of the U.S. are in the midst of the civilization-ending climate-fry.
But, as usual, the empirical evidence reveals the absolute distortions the media fabricates, per the latest U.S. climate records from NOAA.
Case in point: the adjacent graph is a plot for the last 26 years (312 months) of U.S. temperatures through November 2014 - since 1988. The red curve is a 60-month average that clearly indicates "global warming" in the U.S. has gone AWOL for at least a decade - on 'hiatus,' so to speak.
Then there is the 60-month plot of CO2 emissions (black dots), which obviously tells a different story then the press fabrication that the "rapid" global warming we are "suffering" from is a direct result of human CO2 emissions.
Hmmm...clearly temperatures do not react to CO2 as those crack science reporters "report."
This NOAA empirical evidence is unequivocal and indisputable, yet the mainstream media refuses to inform the American public of these most basic climate record facts.
So why did we pick 1988 as a starting point for this analysis?
Back in the summer of 1988, NASA had its climate expert, James Hansen, testify before the U.S. Senate. In his testimony, he predicted that across the world temperatures would rise dangerously due to human's increasing CO2 emissions.
As a result of the accelerating temperatures, Hansen foretold of major climate catastrophes that would plague the U.S. and the world within 20 some years, if business-as-usual CO2 emissions were not curtailed.
It's now 26 years later, and as the above graph depicts, global warming has stalled; CO2 emissions have not been curtailed in the least. And for the U.S. (look closely at the graph), continental temperatures actually experienced a cooling trend stretching over a decade.
The dramatic climate change disasters that NASA and Hansen predicted? Not even close to happening.
And those are the stubborn facts - much to the chagrin of the UN bureaucrats, national government elites and mainstream hacks journalists.
Note: US temperature dataset can be downloaded from here. NOAA/NCDC reports absolute temperatures and these can be converted to anomalies using the 1901-2000 baseline averages that NOAA provides.
http://ow.ly/DnQGN #tcot #gop #climate2014 ===> latest headlines
As the UN's latest traveling climate circus continues in Lima, Peru, leave it to Greenpeace to put their self-important public relations at the forefront.
And, less anyone forgets, Greenpeace and other sanctimonious, green NGOs contribute nothing, in terms of money and research, to solving actual environmental issues. It's all PR stunts and lobbying.
When will governments finally get real and start taxing these "non-profit" organizations that have sequestered billions of dollars away for their own private use?
Hmm...probably never because most bureaucrats and politico elites have been bought by the NGOs, no?
Oh well, as the world turns topsy-turvy in Lima, here are this past week's update of climate, weather and energy stories of note.
http://ow.ly/DnQGN #tcot #gop #climate2014 ===> latest headlines
Adjacent is an entertaining synopsis of climate-doomsday cult predictions over multiple decades.
The litany of anti-science prediction failures has been a stunning testament to the "expert" fearmongering, which rivals doomsday-crapola spouted by the likes of Christian evangelist Harold Camping and his ilk.
And just because Camping passed in 2013, there are other Christian doomsday-cult believers still keeping his fear-religion tactics at the forefront - with climate change being fertile ground for fanatics to spread their gospel.
If you are not yet depressed enough about the stupidity and gloominess exhibited by our "elites" regarding climate, then you certainly need to read the headlines from the past week.
Take a Prozac when you're done.
Simply stated, the climate reality facts do not bode well for those who still promulgate that Earth's environment is in 'crash & burn' mode from human CO2 emissions.
Whether it is the unanimous opinion by scientists regarding the 18-year "global warming" pause; or the last 9 years for the complete lack of major hurricanes; or the inexplicable and surprisingly thick Antarctic sea ice; or the boring global sea level rise that is a tiny fraction of coastal-swamping magnitude; or food crops exploding with record production; or multiple other climate signals - it is now blatantly obvious the current edition of the AGW hypothesis is highly suspect.
Not only is the AGW hypothesis invalidated by close to twenty years of empirical evidence, the CO2 as a "control knob" concept has been shed of any practical merit.
This has been discussed multiple times at 'C3' over recent years. Now, stepping back a few decades, during a 1988 Congressional staged testimony - conspiracy to mislead comes to mind - the top NASA climate expert predicted that 'business as usual' CO2 emissions would cause rapid and accelerated global warming.
Eventually, building on that 1988 performance, other climate experts developed a hypothesis that CO2 acted as the proverbial control-knob thermostat for the global temperature.
But in reality, is that even remotely accurate?
The above reality chart of empirical evidence affirms what the IPCC truly does not want to discuss: the "control-knob" concept is literally a myth.
The chart plots two-year temperature changes since 1988, with the respective two-year CO2 changes (ppm). It has been 26 years since that testimony-performance, thus there are 13 two-periods plotted on the chart. In addition, the linear trend for the HadCRUT4 gold-standard temperature dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset are shown moving in opposite directions.
There is no doubt. The increasing CO2 changes are not producing the requisite increasing temperature changes, as predicted. Visually, the correlation between the two appears very lame, at best. The actual r2 is a meager 0.12 - yes, that's two plus decades of statistical nothingness.
Conclusion: Those stubborn climate facts are not kind to the ever-fading, CO2-induced global warming hypothesis. Climate change is always happening but it is highly unlikely that the miniscule trace-gas CO2 is a major driver (sure, a minor player, but not one that controls the world's fate). Time for policymakers to abandon the control-knob myth and instead focus on adaption preparation for all types of climate change.
Note: The chart plots and linear trends were created using Excel, and the HadCRUT4 dataset and NOAA CO2 dataset. The plots cover discrete two-year periods, starting with October 1988. The CO2 change is scaled to one-tenth of actual (so that temp changes are visually apparent). Hey, don't know how to chart the above in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.
http://ow.ly/DnQGN #tcot #gop #climate2014
The cartoon on top (by Wiley Miller) provides a perfect description of the mindset of green/left/progressive "science" in all its embarrassing glory. It comes from this recent article about the IPCC's deception and motivations.
The poster below conflates the recent ungodly U.S. November snow and cold weather (aka "global warming" by lib/lefties) with the bogus climate nonbinding "deal" with China that the mainstream press absurdly called "historic."
This week's article headlines regarding climate/energy policies, science and weather do not disappoint - rest lightly, the craziness continues.
(click on image to enlarge)
#agw #acidification #tcot
The proponents of climate alarmism claim that increasing temps and CO2 would severely harm the major coral reefs of the world's oceans.
As has been done in previous studies, a group of scientists conducted scientific research to determine if claimed harm would come to two different coral species of the Great Barrier Reef.
For the research, they used the following coral species: Acropora tenuis and Acropora millepora.
Their peer-reviewed conclusions:
"Chua et al. say they "found no consistent effect of elevated pCO2 on fertilization, development, survivorship or metamorphosis, neither alone nor in combination with temperature." As for warming, they also say that it "had no consistent effect on fertilization, survivorship or metamorphosis." However, they observed that the two degrees of warming actually increased rates of development. And that is good news concerning the future of these organisms!"
http://ow.ly/DnQGN #tcot #gop #climate2014
We have plenty of stories here regarding that pile of B.S., which the White House easily got the mainstream press to spread.
But that story was pushed to the sidelines when it was revealed that the principal Obamacare architect had knowingly and proudly deceived Americans about Obamacare - to the point where he was caught on video boasting about sandbagging, as he called them, "stupid" Americans.
So as a result, a new term 'grubering' (or to 'gruber') has entered the global lexicon - and its root name is from the man pictured above, Jonathan Gruber.
As this despicable lefty elite reminded us, most politicians, academics, scientists, journalists and bureaucrats (the "elites) are pathological liars, besides being serial exaggerators. Their entire modus operandi appears predicated on a collective strategy of deception employed against taxpayers and the electorate.
And, as CAGW skeptics are well aware, this level of 'grubering' is part and parcel of the techniques used by proponents of the climate-doomsday dogma. The climate lies, deceptions, exaggerations and denigrations by climate alarmists are practiced on a daily basis.
With that said, again here are the rest of this past week's stories.
The global warming "warming" hiatus/pause continues for the continental U.S.
The last 18 years of 12-month periods ending in October reveals the unsettled, anti-consensus and indisputable science of empirical evidence that Americans do not face catastrophic global warming from human CO2.
Which the voters are fully aware of.
Update: From the comments: "The graph should show 18 years, but it's only showing 16 years." Actually, NOAA's chart above represents 18 12-month periods (ie fiscal years, so to speak) starting with the following period: 199611 - 199710. This is how the NOAA web site produces chart when choosing 1997 as the start point, with October 2014 being the ending month - it's not intuitive but that's how they do it.
Witnessing the unequivocal rejection of global warming alarmists' policies and their politicians by the voters was more than just stellar news.
For more on the election's implications and many other climate/energy stories, go here.
This chart plots the global warming trends versus CO2 growth trends over a wide variety of time periods (last 30 years through the last 10 years, as of 10/31/2014).
As one can easily discern, while CO2 growth is exploding up, global temperature trends are collapsing over the same time.
In essence, the warming temperature trends have decelerated into cooling trends.
Visually, it is clear that modern CO2 growth has affected temperatures contrary to the predictions of the IPCC and AGW alarmists. In fact, the correlation between the CO2 and temp trends is negative.
Simply put, the trace gas CO2 does not regulate temperature; it does not act like a control knob or thermostat; and the greater growth in CO2 levels has not caused accelerated, dangerous warming.
Those are the stubborn facts. And it does not matter how many IPCC climate "experts" claim that CO2 is a 'control knob' or how many computer virtual simulations predict future dangerous temperatures based on CO2 being a 'regulator.' The climate reality of satellite empirical evidence falsifies those wildly speculative claims.
And it's not just the satellite empirical evidence that reveals the ongoing CO2/temperature disconnect.
Note: Download the source RSS and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, per century trends (slope function), and 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.
As usual, their latest scare-predictions are well covered by the collaborative mainstream-hysteria press.
And for your reading pleasure, go here for many other climate/science headlines of interest from the past week, including the usual climate-doomsday stuff...
Well...er...be happy, unless the long-term global temperature deceleration continues into a miserable and dangerous global cooling situation...as the GISS (NASA) empirical evidence indicates, CO2-caused "catastrophic" global warming is an absolute non-issue..... (click on below chart to enlarge)
Yes, one gets the above two charts, revealing interesting, empirical climate science truths, such as:
1. The chart on the left (for periods ending Sept. 1999) reveals an acceleration of global warming trends, while the CO2 growth trends (see black dotted curve) across periods were fairly stable.
2. The chart on the right (for periods ending Sept. 2014) reveals a deceleration of global temperature change that over the 'last 10 years' reached a very slight global cooling status; yet, as can be seen, the CO2 growth trend was accelerating, reaching a rate robustly greater than those periods ending in 1999.
3. Other than a single datapoint (blue column), all the long-term temperature trends for the left chart exhibit warming greater than 1.5 degrees per century; in contrast, the majority of trends (blue columns) for the right chart are below 1.5 degree per century, despite faster CO2 growth and the associated higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
4. Rapid, dangerous, scary, undeniable, indisputable, irreversible, accelerating and catastrophic global warming claims made by various politicians, scientists, bureaucrats, celebrities and "journalists" are unequivocal lies. Long-term global temperature trends below 2 degrees (and going lower) are clearly the opposite of those widely-used, deceptive descriptors.
5. If it was not obvious before, CO2 is not a global "control knob" nor some type of "planet thermostat" - CO2 does not have much, if any, influence on temperature trends.
6. Confirming what climate skeptics (often called "deniers" for denigration purposes) have been stating for the last several decades, the climate changes constantly, primarily from natural forces. As a result, global temperature trends change frequently, exhibiting both cooling and warming modes across time spans.
We call it 'natural' climate change and ancient and historical climate records are replete with it. It happens often and, my goodness, it can be really extreme.
Now some caveats. The charts display a wide variety of temperature trends - they are not predictions for the future. They represent a snapshot in time and can change quickly.
One cannot conclude from the right chart that global temperatures will continue to decelerate into a glacial freezer. That would be exactly the same mistake that the climate "experts" made with the chart on the left - concluding that the temperature trends would just keep accelerating until hellish warmth would end-civilization-as-we-know-it.
And, these two charts cannot be used to claim that humans have no influence on global temperatures. Besides emissions of greenhouse gases, humans are constantly changing their environment which does have an impact (e.g. turning a corn field into an asphalt parking lot or massive deforestation in the world's major tropical rainforests or laying down a carpet of black soot on ice sheets).
Putting aside any further caveats, as an added bonus, the charts can be used to identify climate-liars. These are personalities and organizations that would never publish temperature charts as seen here. Instead, they resort to visual or verbal representations that today, or this month, or this year was the 'warmest' ever. This is not only the worst kind of cherry-picking, it is also incredibly lame.
Since the Little Ice Age (LIA), the world has been warming. It will continue to do so. Thus, we are going to keep experiencing warm(er) and warm(est) events - it's a no-brainer due to natural warming rebound. It will only stop happening when the world enters another mini ice age or worse. Those are the stubborn facts, which essentially makes CO2's trivial influence irrelevant.
When one hears the 'warmest' or 'warmer' refrains, that is when it becomes apparent one is in the company of a climate deception-meister.
Finally, let's all hope the global temperature deceleration shown on the right-most chart stops before it gets really ugly.
Note: Temperature dataset and CO2 dataset used to produce Excel charts and 2nd order fitted trend of the trends. Excel's slope function was used to caluclate each period's trend, then multipled by 1200 to produce a per century trend. 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.
Greenhouse gases, including CO2, looking less and less the major drivers of global temperatures and climate change.
When objective (non-IPCC) science research is done, without the political agenda, Earth's climate seems dominated by natural forces.
From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.
While the EU's elite idiot-savants willfully tie their panties in knots over non-measurable "extreme" climate change from CO2, they continue to ignore the rogue elephant in the solar system.
Instead, those EU elites should start reading the real climate science articles.
The EU members have just agreed to reducing, by 2030AD, their own CO2 emissions by 40% based on 1990 levels (4.5 billion CO2 tonnes in 1990), for the next 17 years (including 2014, until the end of 2030).
That would simply average out to a 106 million tonne reduction per year. The result by end of 2030 would be 1.8 billion less tonnes emitted by EU countries, per year - assuming they can force every single EU country to comply (stop it! no laughing).
For context, the EU since 1990 has reduced their annual CO2 emissions by 598 million tonnes, total. That is an average of 26 million tonnes per year of reduction success since the end of 1990 - a fraction of the 106 million tonne per year reduction average needed for the next 17 years.
What would be the impact on global temperatures if the EU could wave a wand and immediately reduce their current emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes/year?
Absolutely NOTHING....their reduction plans essentially have an unmeasurable yearly impact of global temperatures (i.e. 'unmeasurable' not being at least a 2 decimal point degree (C) decrease/increase, for example, -0.01, -0.02, +0.01, +0.01 and etc.).
The basic arithmetic of CO2's past impact on global temperatures can be determined utilizing the standard 3rd party estimates of total global temperature increase and total CO2 emissions from 1850 on.
Using the historical CO2 emission and temp records, since 1850 global temperatures have increased by 0.00000000000061°C per CO2 tonne emitted (assuming the climate-doomsday alarmists' claims that all warming is due to CO2 and that all human emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years).
As can be seen with the above depiction of the 'C3' CO2/temperature estimator, the total reduction of 1.8 billions tonnes of CO2 emissions will have absolutely no yearly measurable impact on global temperatures (top panel of depiction).
(The various arithmetic calculations are not difficult, however they are tedious. So instead, one can use this simple 'C3' estimation tool to broadly estimate the impact of CO2 reductions/avoidance (or additions) on global temps.)
Since an immediate 1.8 billion tonne annual reduction is not possible, but a 106 million tonne reduction/year over the next 37 years (including 2014 through the end of 2050) could possibly be accomplished, what is the temperature impact with that scenario?
Again, absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures (bottom panel of depiction). That's zero impact after 37 years of avoiding 106 million emission tonnes/year.
And by now you are probably asking yourself just how many years the EU has to reduce their CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year for a measurable impact to be produced (i.e. -0.01 degree change)?
Approximately 165 years from end of 2013! But wait...there's more absurdity...if they're reducing CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year, the EU finally gets to zero CO2 emissions by year 2056 (43 years from end of 2013 - currently, the EU emissions per year are about 3.9 billion tonnes per year).
Well, it means the EU won't ever reach the 165 year mark in CO2 reductions to achieve a -0.01 degree impact. And two, over the next 43 years, despite the 106 million tonnes/year reduction, the EU will still emit another 74.5 billion tonnes in total. That translates into a global temperature impact of +0.04.
On top of this obvious futility from the EU's newest CO2 moral posturing, the other countries of the world will just keep emitting CO2, completely wiping out any reduction the EU achieves. Simply put, no one gives a flying f*#k what the EU does any longer - not Russia, not China, not India, not Brazil nor any other nation on the cusp of climbing out of economic poverty.
Even if other major emitters were to go along with the EU's preening, they will simply ignore their CO2 promises to protect their economies and their citizens. And what will the EU do do enforce their moral superiority? Hmmm...think Russia's wars with the Ukraine and Georgia or think Iran and nuclear weapons - yep, you're right, in diplomatic-speak, the EU can't and won't do squat.
The EU's latest CO2 self-righteousness is as worthless as used toilet paper and everyone knows it.
If the EU's existing CO2 reduction achievements since 1990 continued through 2030, total EU emissions would be 63.1 giga-tonnes.That would produce a global temp increase of +0.039.
If the proposed 40% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 can be achieved, total emissions from 2014 through 2030 would 50.3 giga-tonnes. And that would produce a +0.031 increase.
It would seem the EU's plans to spend directly/indirectly billions-to-trillions of Euros to reduce global temps, by maybe only 8-thousandths of a degree, is tantamount to collective insanity by the elites.
Note: Global temperature source; historical and modern CO2 emission tonnes used by the 'C3' estimator tool. This tool is a quick and dirty means to calculate CO2's impact on temperatures. More information here.
By year 2050, how much warmer will it be?
As the climate "experts" and $billion$ computer models have proven decisively, they are completely clueless when it comes to predicting future global temperatures.
Fifteen years ago, this graph's red curve, representing temperature trends, was tracking right along with the CO2 grey curve - such that, as of the end of September 1999, the 10-year temp trend was on a 2050AD warming pace of +1.1ºC.
But as the adjacent chart now reveals, by end of September 2014, that previous +1.1ºC trend has changed to a -0.03ºC cooling trend despite the continuous acceleration of atmospheric CO2 levels. A powerful testament to the overwhelming significance of natural climate change that far exceeds the influence of of a trace gas such as CO2.
And remember, not a single IPCC or NASA/GISS "expert" predicted this outcome - just the opposite in fact.
As the graph's red plot depicts, global warming trends have been on a deceleration path for an extended period, indicating a strong likelihood that global warming by 2050 will be nowhere close to he current official predictions.
Did we mention 'pussy cat' warming yet?
Obviously, the "settled" science of slam-dunk global warming is in shambles. And natural climate change made it so, much to the chagrin of those elites pushing "consensus" anthropogenic dogma.
Without doubt, in the scheme of urgent, priority issues facing the nation - global warming ain't one of them, which the American public already knows and reflects.
EU researchers analyzed multi-mission satellite records in a new study and determined the following:
1. A huge bulge in the Western Pacific is responsible for much of the past "global" sea rise.
2. Since 2002, sea level rise has greatly decelerated.
3. Globally, on average, sea levels are currently increasing at a 2.31 mm/year rate (that's a 3.2 inches by year 2050 rate).
This research confirms what other scientists have already recently found by analyzing tide gauge records around the world.
For example, a group of scientists examined sea level rise around the North Sea. What they discovered was an absence of evidence confirming the doomsday predictions of soon-to-be submerged coasts.
==> "Based on their analysis of all the available data, the four researchers determined that "linear long-term trends in the Inner North Sea (1.6 mm/yr) are similar to global trends (1.7 mm/yr) but smaller in the English Channel (1.2 mm/yr)." And they report that "although the recent rates of sea level rise were high, there is no evidence yet that sea level rise has accelerated over the last decades in the North Sea region.""
A 1.7mm/year increase converts to a 2.16 inch rise by 2050AD and for the English Channel, 1.2mm/yr equals 1.8 inches by 2050.
Conclusion: Ahhh...those damnable stubborn facts. By 2100, and certainly 2050, the North Sea coastline (and others across the globe) will retain its majestic beauty, still existing as it is known today. Thus, proposed trillion dollar tax hikes and higher price schemes for fossil fuel usage are a total waste since lower cost adaption techniques can be effectively implemented to deal with the such meager rises the world likely faces.
Previous sea level articles.
The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.
Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.
Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.
And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.
On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.
It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.
In fact, from this report we learn:
Previous food-flood-drought-fire articles.
The class action tort community must be starting to salivate.
Since the construction and installation of wind turbines involves a lot of potential deep-pockets to sue, this could be a lucrative market for the ambulance chasers.
With the science of hearing impairment building an ever stronger case, the wind power industry might be facing some very unwanted asbestos-like litigation.
Is it time to short wind futures? Go long into the renewable-ear market?
#peoplesclimate #tcot @gop
As the opinion polls document, Americans apparently not influenced very much by the mainstream media's mass hysteria and gross decptions about global warming and global warming.
How much global warming (or cooling) will take place by 2050AD?
The flat-out, scientific truth is that nobody really knows. Not the IPCC. Not the climate models. Not the experts. And certainly not the green crony-facilitators, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben (fyi...crony Al Gore just loves them to death.)
This chart plotting the IPCC's gold-standard (HC4) of global temperature trends, of past and present, reveals why it is so incredibly difficult to predict climate change, be it of short or long-term nature. Climate change is constantly happening - going from one warming acceleration to the next cooling acceleration extreme, rather rapidly.
And note, this takes place regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels (see black curve), and associated human CO2 emissions. Clearly, the skyrocketing CO2 levels since the 1950's are not responsible for such wide variance in temperature trends, since they can even be observed a century before.
In fact, based on a visual inspection, one could surmise that climate change extreme trends have lessened since the modern increase of CO2 levels.
As can be seen, shorter cooling/warming trends have been highly variable from the very start of recording instrumentally-measured "global" temperatures. The light red (12-mth) and green (60-mth) plots readily show this.
So, when did the greatest acceleration of warming trends take place? Amazingly, all the warming spikes that matched or equaled ±20°C took place (see yellow-tinted boxes) prior to the last 40 years of massive human CO2 emissions.
Regarding the 10, 20 and 30-year climate change variability, there is no question that the wild and natural extremes of the short-term always return to a rather mundane long-term variability. The dark blue, cyan and bright red plots indicate long-term climate change that is...well...pretty mundane.
Compared to a 12-month climate change extreme trend of +25.0°C reached in 1878, the 30-year trend extreme only reached a maximum of +0.72°C (during 2003) and has now been reduced to a August 2014 30-year trend of 0.61°C - and relative to the 1940's, that's a trend only eight-hundredths of a degree greater.
Conclusion: Climate change never stops. Whether short-term or long-term, global temperature trends constantly accelerate/decelerate. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this extreme variability - it is a natural phenomenon that is chaotic, totally unpredictable and unstoppable. The climate change indicated by today's temperature trends is insignificantly different than the past climate change. And those are the stubborn facts.
Note: Linear temperature trends do not represent predictions (any trend today can be drastically different in the future). Excel's slope function was used to calculate the moving trends for each time span (by month) and to plot them. To calculate the trends by 2050AD, the derived slope for each month and each time-span trend was multiplied by 424 months (after August 2014, there are only 424 full months until January 1, 2050AD). HadCRUT4 global dataset and CO2 (ppm) datasets used for chart can be found here.
The researchers found the following:
1. Warming is stronger during the nighttime hours.
2. Warming is stronger in the winter months.
3. Warming is stronger in the Arctic latitudes.
4. Warming is strongest for extreme low temperatures.
"The scientists' conclusion was the following: "Overall, our results are consistent with those reported in previous studies, particularly in the sense that Canada has become much less cold but not much hotter."
In other words, most of the warming took place at the lowest temperatures; during the coldest hours; at the coldest regions; and during the coldest seasons.
And this peer reviewed finding confirms what many other regions of the world have experienced: global "warming" is not about ever hotter maximum temperatures, it is more about the warming of the coldest temperatures (i.e., warmer minimums).
Previous peer-reviewed articles.
http://ow.ly/C2kAx #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc
Hollywood celebrity started the week with a bang...confirming corruption is alive and well within the 'green' activist brigade.
Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site
Based on current U.S. subsidies to promote non-CO2 emission vehicle purchases, what would be the cost to the U.S. taxpayers for supporting a goal of avoiding a +0.01°C global warming increase?
The answer? Over $40 trillion.
To simplify this example, we compare a modern all-electric vehicle (aEV), the Nissan Leaf, to a modern high MPG gas vehicle, the Nissan Versa. Customers are provided a very large tax subsidy for the former, while the latter receives none. (Substitute any all-electric vehicle for the aEV Leaf and any high MPG gas auto for the Versa and the issues remain the same.)
In order to achieve the goal of 0.01°C potential reduction in global warming, how many Leafs would need to be bought instead of the Versa vehicle? And how much would that cost the American taxpayers?
Summary: Some 5.6 billion Leafs would need to be purchased, putting Americans on the the hook for $42 trillion in subsidies.
For those interested, we now go to the arithmetic behind those two answers. (Here is a different analysis approach to the same issue.)
The modern gasoline Nissan Versa achieves a 35mpg rating; with each gallon burnt producing 19 pounds of CO2. If on average, each Versa is driven 12,000 miles per year, a total of 342.85 gallons would be consumed. That amount of gas gallons equals 6,515 pounds of CO2, which converts to 2.96 metric tonnes of CO2 per year per the average driven Versa.
Since 1850, through the end of 2013, there has been 1.44 trillion metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. During that same span, the average annual global temperature has increased by +0.86°C. By dividing this temperature increase by the total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1850, it is determined that one CO2 metric tonne is associated with an increased global temperature of 0.0000000000006.
Put another way, each CO2 tonne hypothetically equates with 6 ten-trillionths of a degree (C). And that means each Versa's 2.96 tonnes of emissions would hypothetically equate to a temperature impact of 18 trillionths of a degree, per year.
How many Versas would have to be sold (instead of the CO2 clean Leaf) to equate to a +0.01°C increase?
5.6 billion Versas.
Now flip the coin. To avoid a 0.01 degree increase, Americans would have to buy 5.6 billion Nissan Leafs, instead of the Versas. For Americans, that's a 'Leaf' in every pot, garage, attic, bedroom, basement and all bathrooms, so to speak. (Hey good news!...only 560 million need to be sold if each vehicle survives 10 years; of course, the batteries will wear out way before then.)
And each and every one of those Leafs would potentially get a $7,500 tax credit, paid for by the American taxpayer - amounting to a $42+ trillion cost for reducing potential warming by a hypothetical 0.01 degree.
Of course, there are other all-electric vehicles sold in the U.S. that are also available with the hefty tax credit. Since 2010, when the $7,500.00 tax credit began, there has been an estimated 100,000 all-electric vehicles sold in the US. A tiny dirt clod on the mountain of 5.6 billion needed. The aEV niche market remains very tiny, for a lot of reasons.
If the 100,000 number is accurate, then it would appear that Americans have already subsidized some $750 million on this 'green' fiasco in order to achieve a hypothetical future temperature reduction, which can't even be globally measured - that's a lot of $$$-something for absolutely climate nothing.
This is just another example of the hugely stupid and expensive 'green' policies that politicians have saddled the American taxpayer with.
Why did this happen?
Frankly, it's mostly due to the mainstream press fanning the flames of mass climate doomsday-cult hysteria. Instead of journalists producing sober and reasoned reporting, they drank the cult's global warming 'kool-aid' and became cheerleaders of wildly irresponsible reporting - essentially hysterical, anti-science claims. (Here's a recent example of mainstream media's insane global warming doomsday-cult style of reporting.)
Prior to this legislation being passed by legislators pressured by special interest groups, journalists could have been investigating the empirical evidence and doing the calculations themselves. Their research would have generated tough questions that could have been posed to the politicos and bureaucrats, forcing a rational and scientific debate. However, it would seem, the "journalists" did no due diligence other than reading and then reporting verbatim the press releases of special interest groups.
So, instead of $750 million flowing into research dealing with, say, children's cancer, Alzheimers, ebola and other important scientific endeavors, the hundreds of millions went to crony-capitalists and the very wealthy. Sadly, even more of this taxpayer lucre will flow for each new aEV sold with no meaningful climate result.
Helloooo, Washington D.C.... maybe new legislative commonsense rules should be imposed for any future 'green' policies and regulations to be considered.
An example: no legislation will even be considered unless the scientific empirical evidence (not computer models/simulations) confirms that any new policy/rule/subsidy will achieve a global warming reduction of at least 0.01 degree within 10 years for a cost that does not exceed $10 billion/year for taxpayers and consumers. 10 years at $10 billion is a $100 billion cost, which is still a ludicrous, mind-boggling amount for such a measly result.
(If readers have ideas for new common sense rules that Congress should commit to in order to avoid any more costly 'green' stupidity, leave a comment or two.
And BTW politicos...if wealthy Americans want to certify their own 'greeness' they can start paying for it on their own dime, not steal from the wallets of less fortunate Americans.
Note: Supposedly, the ludicrously large tax credit for all-EVs is going to expire. The likelihood of this incredible waste of taxpayer money being ended is extremely low since few Washington politicians possess the courage to vote against the powerful corporate welfare lobbyists, while also ending the subsidies to the wealthy purchasers of the Nissan Leaf, Tesla and other aEV cars.
The CO2 emissions expended to manufacture a Nissan Leaf are not included in this analysis; nor the CO2 emissions used to charge the Leaf every night/day; nor the other significant environmental impacts and costs associated with producing batteries for an aELV; nor the taxpayer loans (ie. cost) car aEV companies like Nissan received from the US government.
Download an Excel spreadsheet with pertinent data and calculations used to determine Versa CO2 production, temp impact and taxpayer dollars per 0.01 degree.
Has two-decades worth of cumulative CO2 growth in the atmosphere caused the "experts'" predicted dangerous and rapidly accelerating global warming?
That's the straight-forward question.
And the straight-forward answer is?
Well, despite all that CO2 growth, global warming has slowed to a creep on the Earth's surface, and in the atmosphere, global warming has flat-lined.
Using the IPCC's gold-standard global surface dataset (the UK's HadCRUT4), this chart plots the cumulative growth in temperature along with NOAA's reported cumulative growth in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm).
For CO2 (grey curve), there is a clear and consistent upward growth of CO2 levels - unrelenting would be an apt description. In contrast, global temperatures are all over the map, with highs and low being constantly...er, variable.
The end results over the 20 years ending August 2014 are fairly obvious:
How easy is it to say, three times quickly?: catastrophe-climate-doomsday-cult-is-discredited.
So, does all the above empirical evidence mean that human CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Nope. Does it mean the world will no longer warm? Does it mean humans don't have an impact on continuous natural climate change? Nope. Does it mean that the world should quit trying to be energy and carbon efficient? Not at all.
What it does mean, though, is that the public and the policymakers were greatly deceived by the "consensus" science and computer models that loudly declared (and btw, still do) imminent disasters and doomsday global warming.
As the current climate conditions now indicate a slow, creeping climate change scenario, it provides policymakers and the public the luxury of time to continue moving to a more carbon-efficient economy, thus improving the environment without needlessly sacrificing quality of life and living standards.
In summary, it's another case of those stubborn facts: the empirical evidence does not lie; but computer models and "experts" do.
Note: Download HC4 and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, trends and chart. The chart covers 240 monthly records, starting with Sept. 1994. For this graph, both the temperature and CO2 datapoints were set to zero; then the cumulative changes for both were plotted each month - does not affect linear trends when done this way.
http://ow.ly/C2kAx #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc
Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site