Global warming hysteria and fear-mongering, as expressed by the fringe green groups, progressive Democrats and the extremists of the Obama administration, are reaching a peak as November's Paris COP21 climate summit is approaching. But is the hysteria warranted?
Over and over again the public hears from UN and national government bureaucrats that global warming is rapidly becoming dangerous and accelerating faster than that experienced in the past due to human CO2 emissions. U.S. politicians of extreme left-wing persuasion seem to be especially enamored with over-the-top climate catastrophic predictions, which makes sense since they propose more taxes and regulations to control Americans and businesses and, of course, to "save-the-world," so they say.
Seriously, is the hysteria and draconian proposals to eliminate fossil fuels even close to being warranted? Should President Obama really be proposing that the U.S. follow unproven and potentially reckless energy and economic policies based on climate-cult doomsday prophecies?
Well, the adjacent chart provides 12 reasons why Obama's obsession and the hysteria of progressives are plainly absurd.
Look close - indeed there are at least 12 previous presidential terms that experienced global warming rates (a.k.a., acceleration) greater than anything experienced over the last 6.5 years of Obama's administration.
In fact, the majority of the greatest 5-year acceleration (i.e., the highest warming rates) took place prior to 1950 when CO2 emissions were a fraction of today's levels.
The politicos' global warming hysteria appears even more contrived and manipulative when examining acceleration using a moving 6.5 year average for the 5-year acceleration rates. On the chart, the black curve is the 6.5 year moving average since 1860.
(Why 6.5 years? Through June 2015, Obama's term in office covers 6.5 years - 78 months.)
Simply put, the black curve represents 1,868 datapoints for global warming acceleration, thus comparing Obama's length of term with those occupying the White House prior. Exactly 1,170 of the datapoints exceed the June 2015 datapoint of "rapid" warming that has so panicked this administration.
Needless to say, global warming from human CO2 emissions is an exceptional yawner, and is in no sense a current legitimate threat when viewed in the context of recent climate history.
That's a climate FactCheck and undeniable. And here's more proof that the current warming rate is unexceptional.
Note: Source of HadCRUT global temperature data. Excel was used to calculate 5-year slopes (Excel slope function) for each month; then used to produce moving 6.5 year averages of the 5-year slopes.
And John Cook of University of Queensland has again confirmed that Down Under academia has sketchy regard for ethics and morals. Here is a university that seems to condone fabrications and lies regarding science issues by hiring a person known for being truth-challenged.
Cook, who is also the proprietor of the 'Skeptical Science' web site, has now been exposed as literally posing in comments on certain blog postings as the famous theoretical physicist, Luboš Motl. Simply put, this is premeditated identity theft meant to deceive. This reprehensible behavior was done under the auspices of a Western Australia University's "scientific" experiment, prior to his Queensland employment.
On top of that, Cook's fake comments misrepresented Motl's views about climate science - in other words, Cook just made up lies stuff.
Certainly, global warming alarmists long ago jumped-the-Nazi, so to speak, which Cook's most recent bizarro revelations obviously confirm. Then there are the previous Cook episodes that expose the level of global warming alarmist "science" B.S. - see here, here, here and here.
Then there is the University of Western Australia's ethics debacle in approving shoddy science by university employees and Cook's associates. This is the same university of the climate-doomsday cult that then decided to double-down on their support of the cult.
Yikes! What's up with Australia, mates?
The earliest monthly global dataset that we have available from NASA is the one produced for the August 2005 reporting period. Overall, that dataset contains 1,508 monthly observations since the beginning of 1880.
It seems that under Obama, NASA has conducted a global warming fabrications corrections effort, especially focused on the most recent decades since the 1970's.
Specifically, when comparing the newly adjusted NASA dataset to the one reported in August 2005, out of the 308 months spanning January 1980 through August 2005, NASA has warmed 302 months (only 2 months were cooled and 6 were left unchanged from the 2005 dataset).
Of the total warming adjustments corrections applied to the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's (through Aug 2005) they average out to a bureaucrat-made warming increase of +0.08°C per month.....
===> that's equal to a 96°C per century warming trend if NASA continues with a pattern of similar "corrections."
This NASA non-random treatment and purposeful changes of past empirical evidence is beyond just being anti-science. It is fraud-like, with the root cause being attempts by bureaucrat-scientists to meet the political and propaganda agendas of government elites - agendas that have been blatantly obvious over recent years.
Prior to the upcoming, yawn-producing UN's 2015 Paris COP21 greenhouse gas fear-mongering conference, one could surmise that NASA was charged with creating global temperatures that were the hottest ever, regardless of the integrity and credibility damage that the science community and objective scientific methodologies would sustain.
NASA provides ample evidence why scientists, bureaucrats and political elites should be held in contempt by the public. Literally, their utterances should never be trusted on any issue that requires an objective, impartial scientific treatment.
'Never trust, only verify' should be the new motto for the public to take to heart.
Note: Spreadsheet with NASA GISS datasets: August 2005 & June 2015
From time to time, NOAA also exhibits the typical your-federal-govt-at-work "competence".
On their 'Climate-At-A-Glance' (CAG) web site, NOAA reports that the contiguous U.S. has been cooling at a rate of -0.6°F per century since January 1, 1994 (see pink rectangle on image). That's a 258-month period.
Surprise! Color me a skeptic.
Per the monthly absolute temperatures and anomalies that NOAA reports for the period from Jan 1994 to June 2015, there does not appear to be any obvious means to calculate a cooling trend. In fact, using the CAG supplied NOAA dataset for temperatures during that period, there is a warming trend of 1.68°F, calculated using Excel's slope function for a linear trend.
Indeed, from the same NOAA reported data, there is a U.S. cooling trend but it does not start until February 1996. Using either NOAA's reported 'Climate-At-A-Glance' absolutes or anomalies, that trend is a -2.28°F for the 19.4 year period (233 months).
The more recent reporting from NOAA is hardly an improvement - from 2010 thru June 2015 they are reporting a -44.33°F per century cooling trend. Ummm...I don't think so.
It's highly doubtful that NOAA will be on the airwaves anytime soon discussing a -44 degree cooling trend when they're required to scream "it's-the-hottest-ever" constantly.
Summary: "Ashville, we have a problem." Okay, is this a function of just a very poorly designed web page that simply misleads the public? Or, a reporting system with really bad quality control efforts? Or competence, maybe lack thereof? Or, a management team totally distracted by their political agenda priorities prior to Paris 2015? Or, yet another successful Chinese hack penetrating government "security"?
There is an anti-science political agenda that is driving governments to fabricate excess global warming that really does not exist.
When one listens carefully, the political agenda becomes obvious. And government-funded scientists certainly listen very carefully to their paymasters.
As a result, faux-science is pervasive.
Case in point: NOAA's bureaucracy "scientists" are seemingly dedicated to squeezing manufacturing new global warming from any and all past empirical measurements, every single month - literally.
Their quasi-religious green jihad against the historical climate records has just been well dissected and documented by Walter Dnes. The adjacent chart is his analysis, with some additions by 'C3' (bold green, red and cyan lines, chart text and title added to his original).
===> The 'C3' horizontal dark green line is placed at zero degree change; vertical red dashed lines represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of warming adjustments; and cyan vertical dashed lines periods represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of cooling adjustments.
As the chart depicts, from the 1880s thru the mid-1920s, the monthly temperature adjustments applied by NOAA appear to be somewhat random in regards to cooling and warming changes.
From approximately 1926 on though, NOAA's warming and cooling adjustments give all appearances of not being the least bit random, but specifically designed to make historically documented warming periods cooler (such as the extreme warming of 1930s) and the more recent warming of the last two decades - made to appear even greater than reported during real-time.
The most recent decades of non-random adjustments are clearly an attempt by agenda scientists to rid the NOAA global dataset of the very inconvenient and embarrassing 21st century 'pause', also called the 'hiatus.'
What many don't realize (i.e., politicians, policymakers and the public alike) is that NOAA adjusts the monthly historical climate records every single month. And within the next few days, NOAA will release a new historical dataset ending at June 2015, which will likely include some 80% of the monthly records back to 1880 being "adjusted" once again. And they will do the same for the July 2015 historical dataset.
The constant manipulation and adjusting of empirical measurements simply never ends - it's ad infinitum, déjà vu.
The global warming political agenda demands a convincing story, and the falsification is necessitated when nature does not cooperate with the global warming narrative.
Walter's article goes into much greater detail with many more charts - a definite read by those interested in faux-science perpetrated by govt types. But he has only dissected NOAA's fabrication adjustments from late 2010 and forward to the present. In reality, the fabrication of all temperature records started much earlier though, which can be seen here, here, here, here and here.
For the record, it's definitely not only the U.S. climate agencies that are knee-deep in the 'sɔıǝuɔǝ' cesspool of data falsification.
Note: For those wondering how 'science' was transformed to 'sɔıǝuɔǝ', it was created here.
Here's a chart that NOAA and other govt-funded global warming proponents are not about to advertise. Instead, rest assured, they will be cherry-picking the usual meme of hottest day or week or month or quarter and/or year to publicize.
But when longer periods are examined, those favored govt/media 'cherry-picks' start to look exceptionally lame in comparison.
For example, the NOAA web site produced this chart that allows analysis of average U.S. temperatures over 5-year periods (60-month periods). The chart starts in 1988 (5-years ending 1988) when NASA's chief global warming alarmist predicted (at a U.S. Senate hearing) that the U.S. would also suffer from the global warming trend with dire consequences.
As the chart reveals, the U.S. warmed thru June 1992; then cooled until end of June 1997; then significantly warmed thru June 2000; and has since experienced a cooling trend that stretches to June 30, 2015. Clarifying, from 2000-2015 covers a 16-year span, which indisputably shows a 'pause' in 5-year warming that NOAA correctly identifies as a cooling trend.
It's a cooling trend equaling 1.3°F per century. And not a single government sponsored climate expert, nor wildly expensive climate model, predicted such.
Note: Source of the NOAA average temperature chart. The chart plots 5-year average temperatures for the contiguous U.S. states starting with the 5 years ending June 1988 (July 1983- June1988).
The major proponents of climate doomsday alarmism claim that the growth of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is causing a rapid growth of dangerous atmospheric CO2 levels.
But does the scientific empirical evidence support that claim?
In climate reality, not only is it a false claim, it is at best anti-science propaganda.
This chart plots the percent growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions versus the percent growth of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1966. As can be observed, the emissions growth is on a strong declining trend whereas the atmospheric CO2 continues on its modestly increasing growth trend.
The R2 between the two depicted annual growth rate plots is an embarrassingly low 0.02 (zero comes to mind for some reason), which reflects an overall large negative trend of CO2 emissions percentage growth versus a small positive percentage growth trend for atmospheric CO2.
Question: If actual CO2 emission growth is a weak causal factor in atmospheric CO2 growth, then how exactly can it be a strong cause of dangerous "accelerating" growth of global warming, per the dogmatic AGW hypothesis?
Oh, that's right, global warming is not accelerating.
Additional greenhouse gas charts.
Note: Source of CO2 annual CO2 emissions tonnes and source of CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels. Growth percent calculations and chart plots accomplished using Excel. Update: Annual growth percents plotted are calculated using prior year measurement as numerator and following year measurement as denominator. Another update: typo on chart corrected - thank you, Tom Nelson.
The dogmatic and conventional global warming hypothesis claims that this type of CO2 level growth will cause a dangerous increase of both atmospheric and surface temperatures, thus increasing atmospheric water vapor - i.e., humidity - leading to a positive feedback loop of non-stoppable accelerating global warming.
Clearly, as this chart of empirical evidence reveals, that has not happened. Atmospheric humidity has actually declined, while the atmosphere and ocean temperatures accelerate, decelerate and often develop cooling phases.
Unlike the monotonous, steady state, fast CO2 growth, the major climate measurements are highly variable, obviously unlinked to the CO2 input from humans.
However, per the evidence and the newest research, a case can be made that the non-acceleration and variability of global temperatures for the last 15+ years may have more to do with the 11-year cycles of sunspot activity not being as strong during recent solar peaks than the relentless CO2 growth.
Note: The dark purple, blue and red curves represent centered 37-month averages. The non-centered 37-month averages for CO2 (cyan dots) and RSS atmosphere temperature (green curve) were superimposed on the original chart found here.
Article: The establishment climate science experts have long pushed their favored policy of fossil fuel energy production being replaced by renewable energy sources. The indisputable result has been a literal green energy fiasco in many countries as political leaders fall all over themselves to make taxpayers massively subsidize the green energy projects of billionaires and powerful corporations.
Yet when informed high-tech analysis is applied to an objective review of renewable green energy, it becomes readily apparent that current renewable energy options are abject failures on all counts, including the goal of reducing global warming.
Article: The consensus quackery that medical dogma, experts, politicians and mainstream media have promulgated over 3 decades has proven to be a health disaster.
In America and other other industrialized countries, government bureaucrats and health research elites relying on non-validated science have essentially ruined the public's health with growing epidemics: obesity, diabetes and multiple related chronic diseases.
Similar to today's popular "consensus" obsession jihad science against CO2, the anti-fat and anti-cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease was embraced by all the right-thinking experts, special interest groups and politicos.
This was a mandated politically-correct consensus: fat and cholesterol were the enemy and needed to be eliminated - an enemy that turns out was never supported by the actual empirical evidence.
Now after 30+ years of literally wreaking havoc on the health of millions with bad medical science and absurd advice, the experts are finally being forced to admit they were stupendously wrong and skeptics were right.
In the meantime, people's lives have been shortened and healthcare costs have been increased by trillions due to an unbelievable surge of chronic diseases tied directly to government diet nutrition quackery.
But a tipping point has now been reached, with objective scientists and the public finally rejecting the quacks who remain possessed by the irrational fears of saturated fat and cholesterol.
And how much longer will it be before the public finally rejects the bureaucrat-science quacks and political/institutional/celebrity elites who continue to push the failed CO2-based anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, whose real political agenda is not science related whatsoever.
Article: Current knowledge about ocean circulations (AMOC and others) and their variability are so unsettled that the most sophisticated and powerful climate models are completely unable to accurately forecast these gargantuan climate forces.
Ocean circulation is responsible for the immense global heat transport that affects every facet of world climate. And yet, the scientists remain perplexed as to the mechanics and intricacies of the entire system.
But what do the climate scientists know for sure? Well...that human CO2 emissions have absolutely nothing to do with this natural ocean circulation heat transport and weather system. That part is settled.
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.
The Pope's climate doomsday encyclical has generated a lot of controversy; and has probably doomed him to be eventually nominated for the Catholic 'hall of shame' for fear mongering anti-science.
Of course, it's not completely the Pope's fault for his ignorance. The Pope's gatekeepers and advisers can take much of the credit for making sure he did not hear about the actual climate science empirical evidence.
One climate doomsday scenario (among many) that continues to have no basis in climate science reality is the infamous prediction that Gaia will soon have a Venus-like atmosphere and boiling oceans...because of humans fossil fuel use. You can rest assured that Pope Francis was made aware of the potentiality of this fringe calamity.
It's a calamity that has long been pushed by the world's leading climate science alarmists.
NASA's former top climate expert, James Hansen, has been in the past a principal proponent of this particular doomsday prophecy. And of course, he provided the dramatic testimony to Congress in the summer of 1988 that really initiated the fear mongering in the U.S. regarding catastrophic global warming and climate change disasters - like turning Earth into Venus.
Unfortunately for the Pope, James Hansen and other hysterical climate doomsday soothsayers, the real world empirical evidence clearly shows that the world's climate is self-correcting and not prone to those scary predicted tipping points and runaway disasters from growing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Case in point: The Tropics (20S to 20N latitudes) - A Venus Doomsday?
The above chart plot reveals a tropical climate, as measured by satellites, experiencing a very slight cooling trend (blue curve) over the last 20 years. In contrast, the IPCC's latest climate model (CMIP5/RCP4.5) curve (green line) predicted a significant warming trend during that same 20-year period.
Going back even further, the red chart plot depicts an 83-month period of exceptional warming right after the Hansen testimony of 1988. In contrast, the IPCC climate models predicted a significant cooling trend for the Tropics for those 83 months - an abysmal failure, represented by a 7 degree trend difference between reality and prediction.
Needless to say, although we will, both the consensus climate experts and climate models have been spectacularly wrong in their doomsday projections for the Tropics, which means that human CO2 causing Venus-like conditions for Gaia has no basis in climate science reality.
It's unfortunate that this pope fell victim to his own gullibility and the anti-science machinations of his court jesters advisers. But there is good news for the Catholic masses: you can now also comfortably ignore this encyclical since it was produced from the irrational passion of fear versus the known rational, empirical climate science.
NOAA's latest U.S. temperature dataset reveals that over last 20 years (including 1996), May temperatures have been on a cooling trend: a -0.8°F/century trend.
In addition, the same dataset for 12-month periods ending May shows a cooling trend over 19 years. That trend is a -0.4°F/century.
Regardless if one refers to these climate temperature dynamics as a 'pause,' a 'stall,' a 'hiatus,' or a 'plateau,' it was not expected - no alarmist hypothesis or theory-based scenario predicted this outcome.
Note: Temperature trends are for the continental U.S. The official climate agency source of trends and chart.
It is well documented that global temperature acceleration has significantly paused since 1998, despite the global CO2 emissions growth rate easily exceeding the business-as-usual (BAU) scenarios presented by NASA's James Hansen way back in 1988.
Yet the UN's Paris2015 proposed deep cuts in "dangerous" global CO2 emission growth rates will only delay "climate doomsday" by a laughable 8 months. And that would be accompanied by a likely debilitating economic impact of trillions of dollars - mostly suffered by the world's poor and most vulnerable.
The chart on left plots the most up-to-date 15-year average growth rates of CO2 emissions versus the global economy 15-year average growth rates. Surprisingly, as the GDP growth rate declines, on average, CO2 emissions growth just continues.
With that pointed out, it's also pertinent to point out that over the last 15 years the U.S. total emissions have actually shrunk, as well as those of the EU. In contrast, CO2 emissions for other major world economic regions have robustly increased over the last 15 years.
Previous greenhouse-gas charts.
The past several days has seen much written about the new revision of the NOAA global temperature dataset - a revision that supposedly eliminates the global warming 'pause' or if you prefer, the 'hiatus'.
The revision has received withering scrutiny, with multiple significant criticisms being leveled. Clearly, as the critics point out, this revision is not based on any known physical science principles, nor on any new empirical evidence, but instead on a political agenda that demands "scientists" find more global warming, pronto, for the Paris 2015 climate elite bureaucrats hookup extravaganza.
By utilizing questionable adjustments based on even more questionable assumptions, NOAA managed to produce an entirely fabricated increase in the global warming trend from 1998 to 2012. Theirs is not a real global warming event, it is essentially nothing more than statistical flimflam.
Per the critics, several key failings include:
Relevant to that last point, is the above chart. It's a comparison of warming trends during the 15-year periods ending 2012 (see blue rectangles) and 1997 (see red circles).
Using climate agency temperature anomalies that were reported as of the end of 2012, one can clearly see the dramatic drop in global warming rates from the earlier 1983-1997 period versus the period ending 2012.
Did it still warm from 1998 to 2012?
Yes, it did. But it was at a fraction of the warming trend of the previous 15 years - a definitive slowdown versus the prior warming trend.
And as the chart reveals, the CMIP models (the RCP 4.5 scenarios) expected significantly more warming than observed during 1998-2012 period. Objectively, the models predicted an accelerating warming rate, which actually failed to happen, as the empirical evidence proves.
Because of this decline ('pause'?) in global warming trends, NOAA felt compelled to simply fabricate more warming in a rather feeble attempt to make global warming seem more of a existential threat that might even scare an anti-capitalism Pope into embarrassing fear-mongering.
Unfortunately for the "scientists" at NOAA, despite all their really lame statistical shenanigans, the revised NOAA temperature trend for the 15-year period ending 2012 is still a quite tepid 0.9°C per century - indeed, the descriptor 'lukewarm' readily comes to mind.
Article: From the science-is-never-settled department, a new study utilizing satellite technology measures Antarctica's albedo. It is found to be increasing overall, thus increasing the solar radiation reflected back into space. Ergo, there be climate cooling forces at work despite record atmospheric levels of CO2.
Recent peer-reviewed study headlines.
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.
Article: Researchers analyze empirical evidence across 8 Korean cities. It is inescapable, cold extremes are much more dangerous for humans than heat waves. Cold waves boost admissions some 50% versus 5% for heat waves. From this peer-reviewed study, one can conclude that global warming will reduce the cold extremes, thus making it safer for human life.
Article: It's indisputably obvious - the attack on scientific honesty and credibility is taking place at the highest levels of government. The EPA pursues a blatant strategy of the 'ends-justify-the-means,' thus trashing the requisites of scientific methodology and integrity.
This followup article confirms the sanctioned malfeasance of promoting environmental regulations that can't pass any strenuous cost-benefit analysis.
As they say: "Trust No One".
Article: The EU's major industrial powerhouse is fast becoming a 90-pound weakling - sapped by the incredibly stupid energy policy known as Energiewende. The renewable fiasco has becomes so bad that German politics are severely split as to solutions, with the dominant solution being an increased reliance on CO2-producing coal energy.
As this chart depicts, energy prices for German consumers is on an exponential path skyward since the renewable polices were aggressively pursued.
Is Columbia University an ivory tower of mistruths, falsehoods, fakery, lies and pseudo science?
Multiple unflattering examples begs the question.
The outcome of this "scientific" art has been the reduction of public belief in global warming and climate change "crisis."
Adding a question mark to the university's scientific competence and reputation, the institution has recently been rocked by the infamous gay-marriage study. A study based on non-existent and/or fraudulent data, of which Columbia University's own Donald Green was forced to retract from Science, the esteemed peer-reviewed journal.
A warmup to the current junk science shenanigans took place a few years back. In 2001, there was the well publicized science scandal perpetrated by Columbia researchers claiming that prayer enhanced pregnancy outcomes - supposed "birth miracles" - were proven by the empirical evidence. It was a study published in the prestigious Journal of Reproductive Medicine, receiving wide-spread and prominent media coverage.
The end result of the birth-miracle study? Ultimately, a massive embarrassment for the university regarding its institutional capabilities (lack thereof?) of separating truth from falsehood - a serious shortcoming that appears to still plague the university.
And then there is the alleged rape claim by the student-artist known as the 'Mattress Girl' at Columbia University. These are allegations debunked by outside authorities, thus essentially consigning the rape charges to the ash heap of suspected art-fraud. Yet, at graduation Columbia allowed the tarnishing of the celebratory event for families by permitting this "artist's" fact-challenged allegations to be visually center stage.
Is it a House-of-Lies? Okay, that's likely too harsh of a condemnation, but be forewarned. Any future claims by those associated with Columbia University should now be automatically suspect - obviously, the university has yet to effectively clean its proverbial 'house' of fraud-like behavior, so to speak.
Note: Article that is source of image.
The establishment's health/medical/nutrition consensus science rivals the IPCC's anti-CO2 crusade climate science in terms of producing spectacularly wrong theories and the associated fact-less, terrible predictions.
The anti-fat/cholesterol heart disease theory has been a mainstay of medical dogma for decades. In recent years though, it has been torn asunder by actual real empirical science. This non-consensus science is finally coming to the forefront due to establishment-nutrition skeptics, not the goose-stepping health elites and their press release parrots, the mainstream media.
Article: The global warming, climate change alarmists have lost the scientific debate so badly that the NSF felt obligated to fund the development of a green propaganda manual to be used in their never ending fear-mongering campaign.
Article: NASA temperature records for Antarctica peninsula show no real warming since the late 1980s - a 'pause' that predates the global one, despite record levels of atmospheric CO2.
Article: Modern climate change and global warming not outside boundaries of natural variability.
Article: The green/left/progressive penchant for those extreme, scary climate change, anti-science predictions is never ending - as David Barber proves.
Article: Growth of regional South Pole sea ice is severely hampering resupply at research bases in Antarctica.
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.
It's another day and another stubborn climate fact: global sea ice is not melting as expected by the experts.
Unexpectedly for the IPCC and associates, the trend is flat, despite the greatest growth in human CO2 emissions ever recorded.
At this point, it would be safe to say that the empirical evidence confirms that past hysterical projections of a global sea ice meltdown by global warming alarmists were without true scientific merit, due to being based on an untested and weak hypothesis that humans would cause catastrophic climate change.
Damn those stubborn facts!
The new study examined 118 years of empirical evidence and discovered that small Pacific islands are not disappearing under the waves of a rising ocean. Instead, the tiny atoll islands are actually growing larger.
It's another climate change 'Ooopsie'.
A new article over at NoTricksZone brings us yet another example of scientific fraud perpetrated by the national climate agencies.
As the adjacent chart from the NTZ article documents, NOAA's definitive manipulations of a U.S. states climate records to enhance the modern global warming trend is indisputable.
As the engineering physicist who analyzed the recent NOAA dataset for Maine concluded:
"In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone...They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F."
Using the updated HC4 global anomalies dataset, since 1955 the global temperature trend for intermediate and long-term periods has never exceeded 1.8 degrees per century, let alone the fabled 2.0° mark, as of calculations based on the March 31, 2015 date.
As the adjacent graph reveals, the latest 10 year trend since 2005 has dropped to a barely measurable 0.4°/century and the last 18 years (since 1997) is an eyelash higher at 0.67°/century - and by the way, both of these figures are essentially climate-impact insignificant.
Why 1997? Well...there has been very little warming since 1997. What warming there has been is robustly below what "expert" climate models projected. Climate scientists typically refer to this unexpected deceleration as the 'hiatus' or 'pause'.
Per the chart of empirical evidence, the deceleration of global warming is evident from the fitted trend curve.
Sticking with that last 18-year trend as of March 2015, how does the most recent period stack up versus other 18-year periods when the entire HC4 dataset from 1850 is analyzed?
Since 1850, there has been 1,983 months of reported temperatures. From those, 1,768 18-year trend datapoints can be calculated.
The March 2015 18-year trend datapoint ranks number #875 - so, approximately half of the past datapoints possess a higher 18-year trend.
Yet atmospheric CO2 growth since 1964, as represented by the green circles on the graph, has been non-stoppable, blowing well past the hypothetical "safe" 350ppm level to reach the highest modern CO2 level ever.
This combination of temperature acceleration datapoints and CO2 measurements clearly demonstrates that CAGW accelerated warming does not exist; and it is unequivocally, irrefutably, undeniably and non-debatable that the world is experiencing a rather tepid, 'luke-warming' environment.
Historically, today's temperature trends are entirely within in the realm of what has taken place in the past from natural temperature variation, regardless of CO2 levels.
In other words, it is indisputable that the current climate does not suffer from "dangerous" man-made warming.
One could say that this infallible empiricism defines the non-religious, scientific climate change reality, so-to-speak.
Notes: Interpreting the above chart's blue columns: for example, since 1984 (see yellow box) the last 31 years (see corresponding blue column X-axis label) the warming trend was 1.73C/century, as of the 31-year period ending March 2015. The green circles are simple calendar year atmospheric CO2 measurements - the first (leftmost) circle represents 1964 and the last green circle is 2014. All blue columns representing temperature trends use at least 100 months of temperature measurements for the trend calculations (using less than 100 can produce extreme volatility for calculated trends - the less than 100 datapoint calculations are very interesting but can be quite misleading). Excel was used to calculate the different period trends (using Excel's slope function); Excel's charting function was used to plot the trend datapoints. Those stubborn facts: source of UK MetOffice H4 dataset; source of atmospheric annual CO2 levels.
There are past periods of extreme weather and severe natural disasters that just stand out as examples of strange climate activity and weird 'earthly' behavior.
The decade of the 1970s is one such period of bizarre, freaky and dangerous weather that prompted serious scientific discussions regarding global climate change at the time.
And the most discussed condition of climate change that had the focus of scientists and government experts?
Below is a list of early 1970's weather (and other natural disaster) events and links to multiple articles about the most popular climate change hypothesis at the time.
And these adjacent movie posters?
Pure Hollywood, utilizing anti-science propaganda masquerading as possible climate catastrophic conditions from global warming.
And try guessing the audience that embraces the gutter of such doomsday garbage - of course, you aren't surprised are you?
Articles from early 1970s:
Ahhh...those stubborn facts. They can be so inconvenient.
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."
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.
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.
Recent examinations by analysts Paul Homewood, Tony Heller and others confirm that a wide variety of official temperature datasets have been excessively manipulated by climate "scientists" - to the point where policymakers can no longer be sure if climate records can be trusted.
The blatant temperature manipulation perpetrated on the public has been, for the most part, an esoteric issue discussed by individuals familiar with temperature record analyses. (Peer reviewed research indicates that the fake-warming likely represents 25 to 50% of reported global warming by the climate agencies.)
In the past, the mainstream press essentially ignored the anti-science temperature record fabrications, but no longer.
And as this cartoon indicates, the consensus science establishment is being mocked for the exposed temperature lies.
Wouldn't it be great if we all could just trust what the establishment science states about actual climate temperature changes and trends? But we can't, as they have categorically proven to be driven by agendas other than scientific truth. One just needs to connect-the-dots, so to speak, to discern what is really happening.
Indeed, the preponderance of evidence from the officially manipulated temperature datasets indicates fabricated cooling adjustments being applied to periods pre-1980 and a fabricated warming since 1980.
Examples of documented questionable climate record adjusting by the climate agency officials are not hard to find: Melbourne, U.S. western areas, 1997 global versus 2014, winter 2014, U.S corn belt, Texas winter temps, Paraguay, Africa, Iceland, GISS land temps, northern hemisphere pre-1940, Alice Springs (Australia), Bolivia, U.S. temperature trends, Arctic adjustments, Antarctica, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, and many others.
The net effect of the joint cooling and warming adjustments appears to be two-fold in support of the UN/IPCC political science political "science" agenda.
One, the overall warming trend is enhanced, which is then attributed to increased CO2 by the government agency scientists, versus stating that their underlying temp adjustments were the real "enhancement" cause. Two, bureaucrats (both transnational and national), politicians and journalists demand global warming/climate change talking points - thus the creation of higher (i.e. warmer) current temps than any temperatures exhibited earlier in the 20th century.
One of the unintended and humorous consequences of climate record fabrications has been the nonsensical and irrational explanations as to why enhanced global warming is producing colder and more severe winters. The faux-warming has now necessitated the fabrication of new global warming capabilities that are entirely inconsistent with known weather physics and history.
Recent winter weather examples that have caused CAGW alarmists to expose their anti-science rationales include:
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Halifax, Crimea, New Brunswick, Newark, Prince Edward Island, Boston, Italy, Wales, Mexico, India, Cape Cod, Bulgaria, Delaware, Balkans, Ohio, Pyrenees, Ontario, Europe, Kentucky, Indiana, France, Texas, Seattle, Tibet, Afghanistan, Buffalo, Great Lakes, Japan, Southern California, Iowa, New York, New Mexico, Montreal and even Cuba.
Unfortunately, the anti-science of climate science will continue since it appears to be prerequisite of research funding - in simple words, scientists are forced to support the consensus green political agenda in order to survive and thrive.
Additional temperature adjustment analysis charts.
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.
This updated NOAA U.S. temperature map is a stark reminder of the incredibly cold climate that northern and eastern areas of the US have recently experienced. The bitter cold, in particular, impacted those regions east of the Mississippi River, with states butting up against Canada taking the brunt.
It's also a reminder of those predictions by NASA experts and computer models, as promulgated during 1988 congressional testimony, that accelerated global warming would significantly impact the U.S., with many "experts" then claiming our future was one of warmer winters and no snow.
More to that point is the adjacent chart of US Nov/Dec/Jan temperatures (28 years) and trends since that 1988 testimony. It represents the following 8 states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine (all these states are east of the Mississippi and share a border with Canada).
To summarize the chart essentials:
1. Winter temperatures (Nov/Dec/Jan) exhibit a strong variability (the blue columns). Clearly, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels during this period has not caused ever-warmer winters.
2. Many of the winters are below the 1988 average of 27.58°F, including the winters of 2014 and 2015. (see blue dashed line)
3. Despite the very warm winter of 2002, the overall warming trend (orange curves) of winter temperatures has collapsed to a cooling trend of -5.7°F. There is no escaping the obvious NOAA empirical evidence that greenhouse gases are not producing the predicted accelerated warming.
4. The 10-year average winter temperature (the green curve) peaked in 2007 from a low experienced in 1989. Without any doubt, those few very exceptional warm winters (5 of the 28 winter datapoints) have definitely moved the average up. With that said, since 2007 it has declined slightly.
Is the U.S. just a rare anomaly where a cooling winter trend, not warming, is happening? Unfortunately, for the public and CAGW-scientists, regions with cooling trends are becoming more common.
Additional current empirical evidence that CO2 does not cause dangerous "warming" winters:
Note: Source of dataset for 8-state winter temperature chart produced by Excel. Using Excel calculated the 8-state winter months average; the 10-year trends and averages that begin with year 1988 on the chart used U.S. winter (Nov/Jan/Dec) temperature data starting with November 1979. The 1988 blue-diamond column on chart represents year of James Hansen global warming testimony.
As the U.S. East Coast continues to dig out from another major blizzard, it is a reminder that natural climate forces and patterns have eviscerated the predictions made by by government climate "experts." Their predictions of warmer winters and less snow have not only been incorrect, they have been flat-out spectacularly wrong.
While ignorance is bliss for many, it is still is no excuse for the elites of politics and media to continue to spread falsehoods about CO2 causing warming winters.
As the above NOAA graphs clearly document, the strong cooling trend for the winter months of December (19 years), January (21 years) and February (20 years) across the U.S. northeast is indisputable.
Let's be clear about this: there is no identifiable group of climate-doomsday experts within government-funded circles who predicted twenty years ago that CO2 would cause this cooling trend outcome.
And precipitation trends over the same time periods in the Northeast? Well, depending on the month, take your pick, up or down. For any given winter month, one year of cold temperatures could produce a wet or a dry month.
It would appear that winter weather is not that predictable from year to year; and obviously, nor are climate conditions some 10, 20 30 or 50 years into the future.
Those who have relied on the CO2-induced AGW climate hypothesis have continuously been proven wrong. Yet, the CO2 cult faithful still hold climate doomsday predictions as gospel, regardless of the empirical science.
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.
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.
No matter how many years go by, the trend towards ever worse climate model predictions continues.
Case in point: The NASA/Hansen climate model that was used by climate experts to convince the politicians, the media and pubic that the world was at severe risk for massive global warming if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not drastically cut.
This model's predictions came to the forefront when NASA's James Hansen provided testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1988. As it was discovered much later, the Hansen testimony was stage-crafted for maximum fear-mongering impact, which should have been the first clue that there was a credibility issue regarding the climate model.
Before diving into the details, a short glance at the accompanying chart provides the critical policymaker insight:
The following provides more details:
The newly published 2014 IPCC AR5 summary report bemoaned the recent significant growth increase of GHGs. The IPCC established the per year growth, prior to 2000, to be at a 1.3% rate. The IPCC AR5 reports that GHG growth has now jumped to 2.2% per year through 2010 (see more details here).
[Editor: Speaking to CO2 emissions more specifically, using the 1999 year-end global CO2 emission level as the base year, CO2 emissions have grown at an average 3.0% per year pace as of the end of 2013. That's 14 years of exceptional growth. In contrast, the 14 years of CO2 growth prior to 1988 is only 1.8% per year (read below as to why prior to 1988).]
To say that GHGs have exceeded the 'business-as-usual" (BAU) scenario would be an understatement - according to the IPCC AR5, a 70% increase has taken place, on a per year basis.
Of course, the BAU scenario was made famous by during that 1988 U.S. Senate hearing.
Per Hansen: "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
In a peer-reviewed article supporting his testimony, he stated that the 1970s and 1980s had an approximate annual growth average of 1.5% (prior to 1988). This was the paper's BAU 'Scenario A' that he spoke of in his testimony. In his written Senate statement, he included an appendix that verifies the ~1.5% BAU estimate for GHGs, plus a chart that depicted the scenarios A, B and C.
That chart is replicated above, with Scenario 'A' being the green curve; the 'B' scenario is the orange curve; and the cyan curve is the 'C' scenario, which represents the 'draconian' emission cuts Hansen states are required to minimize potential global warming.
As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.
Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.
As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.
Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.
Notes: This updated NASA/Hansen chart now uses the current HC4 and GISS V3 datasets, as of 12/31/14. Instead of plotting individual year datapoints for observed temperatures, plotted 3-year (36-month averages ending in December): this reflects an expectation that models can't predict accurately every annual period, but over longer 3-year periods the model and observation trends should better match. Starting in 1960, both GISS and HC4 3-year averages were offset to start at zero (0.0°C) anomaly. To reduce the clutter on chart, only 'even' year observed 3-year temperature datapoints were plotted. The small insert chart is data from IPCC AR5 summary report. The green, orange and cyan Hansen model plots came from this climate-doomsday site.
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.
Does all of the above mean that the future will be an exact repeat of the pattern? Well, the definitive answer to that is 'no'.
There is no denying that, in general, modern climate change closely resembles what has taken place in the past. The similarities are evident, despite short-term climate variations that produce observable differences in duration, levels and intensity.
As the latest peer-reviewed research indicates, modern climate scientists are finally rediscovering (for example and example) the climate truths that their predecessors were aware of: natural earthly/solar/cosmic forces produce repeating (and similar) climate oscillations/cycles, creating dominant influences that dictate overall patterns for long-term climate change.
Yes, the human influence does exist, but it is a distinctly minor player in the long-term scheme of climate patterns.
And because these amazing pattern similarities happen in a chaotic system, they can neither be predicted, nor controlled. Those stubborn facts are continually ignored by advocates of human-caused climate change predictions.
Note: This monthly temperature dataset and Excel used to calculate moving 30-year averages. First, monthly anomalies were used to calculate a 12-month average for each month. Then using an estimate of 14.0C for the global temperature average of the 20th century, 12-month absolute temperatures were calculated from the calculated 12-month average anomalies. Finally, 30-year (360-month) absolute global averages were calculated. Excel's rounding function used to identify ±0.1C changes.
The HadCRUT4 (HC4) global temperature dataset is now considered the gold-standard for surface temperatures (the previous gold-standard was the HC3 dataset).
Using the annual HC4 calculated temperatures, the adjoining chart was created.
As observed, the global temperatures have essentially stalled since 1998, with 2014 likely not greater than that reached in 1998.
This chart also delineates the two major warming periods since 1850. The first from 1917 to 1944; the last from 1976 to 1998. The warming trend increase of the latter over the former was a paltry +0.4 per century - an increase well within what one would expect from natural variability, regardless of CO2 levels.
And then there's the CO2 growth itself.
The 20-year growth rates show an almost continuous climb since the early 1950's. At the end of 2014, it was the highest ever. This greater than 'business-as-usual' growth was discussed in the latest IPCC AR5 report - the growth rate for total greenhouse gases has followed a similar path.
Finally, the chart depicts where the much discussed 2º, 4º and 6º increases over the 1850 global temperature would be... see the red dashed lines.
How long to reach the 2º mark that elites fear so much? Well, per the last 18 years, that trend would indicate another 150+ years before the 2 degree increase would ever be reached.
From this empirical evidence, it would be fair to surmise that invoking more big government polices and regulations to combat unsubstantiated climate-doomsday speculation might not be in the best interests of the public.
Additional modern temperature charts.
Note: Trends of the past are not reliable predictors of future.
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.