more “Inconvenient ” “Facts and Data”
The theory that rising CO2 levels force global temperature is now completely debunked.The temperature is not only falling but at an accelerated rate!
The opposite is happening …and at an ever faster rate.  How long can they survive the onslaught of inconvenient truths.Will Gillard now set CO2 credit to drive temps up?
Latest Global Temperature Data Confirms That Unequivocal Global Cooling Is Accelerating
C3 Headlines 

Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998. This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC Climategate scientists claims of “unequivocal,” “unprecedented,” and “accelerating” global warming they have made over recent years. Global warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material also supports.

In a previous post, we reviewed the last 15 years of HadCRUT temperature records, which show that global warming has become insignificant. In fact, one could accurately state that a global cooling trend is now replacing a global warming trend in an “unequivocal” and “accelerating” manner, using the greens’ own favored warming alarmist terms. (click to enlarge)


When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus the May 2011 10-year trend).

As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction. In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by -0.67C.

This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of “business as usual” increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the “consensus” claims of IPCC “climate scientists” and predictions of the bureaucrats’ climate models. (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have failed.)

The lower right chart depicts a similar global cooling trend outcome over the last 15 years. Using the same monthly anomaly data, this chart’s per century trends are based on 5-year linear calculation.



Regardless of how the temperature anomaly records are examined, the last 15-year span has seen the global warming trend fade as the world seemingly moves into a global cooling mode (the continental U.S. 15-year record of temperatures confirms this cooling trend). How long this will persist and how deep the cooling trend may become is pure speculation. And indeed, there is no concrete, emprically proven, scientific reason to assume the cooling will continue – the climate is complex and chaotic, which makes accurate predictions impossible.

These are the take home facts:

1. Global warming is neither unequivocal, accelerating, or even unprecedented.

2. Global cooling is becoming a trend but it’s not clear whether it’s accelerating and unequivocal.

3. Rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused the requisite accelerationof global temperature increases.

4. CO2 levels appear to have little impact on global temperatures.

5. Global temperatures are in a deceleration mode, totally contrary to IPCC’s climate models.

6. Recent severe weather events (2010 and 2011) are not a result of increasing global temperatures; based on the actual temperature evidence since 2001, recent severe weather would more likely be a result of accelerating cooling.

7. Climate models have been stupendously wrong about global warming and climate change, time after time.

Additional modern temperature charts. Unequivocal fake warming, temperature fabrication charts.

Of couse, when your paradigm fails, they flail away and come up with some lame excuse as to why it failed. That came with a paper that claimed Chinese production of sulphate aerosols in their power plants was offsetting the warming ‘temporarily’. Of course, the ‘scientists’ used a computer model of the climate to show that natural fluctuations, such as variations in solar activity as measured by the record low in sunspots, cannot on their own explain the observation. See the nonsense here.

We knew this was coming. Predictably, Michael E Mann, at Pennsylvania State University, not part of the research team, said the study that warming was being masked by emissions from Chinese power plants was “a very solid, careful statistical analysis” which reinforces research showing “there is a clear impact of human activity on ongoing warming of our climate”. It demonstrated, Mann said, that “the claim that ‘global warming has stopped’ is simply false.” – The Guardian, 4 July 2011. Always an excuse for failure and Mann has a closet full.

“The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyway,” writes Judith Curry.

Curry from Georgia Institute of Technology, doesn’t find the economists’ statistical theatrics convincing. She wonders why the short-lived regional increases in particulates should have a global effect on temperatures. She also notes that there has been no increase in aerosols, either globally or over East Asia, from 2000 to 2006; Chinese emissions only rose in the period 2004 to 2007. Kaufmann et al do acknowledge that a La Nina weather pattern cooled the planet between 1998 and 2010. H/t Marc Morano.

The IPCC used the same aerosol excuse to explain the 1945 to 1977 cooling and support their greenhouse forcing argument.

Roger Pielke Sr. adds: One cannot use models to “show” anything. Real world observations must be paramount. Models are only hypotheses.

There is an informative article on this subject: Fildes, R. and N. Kourentzes, 2011:Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change. International Journal of Forecasting. doi 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.03.008 which I postedhere.

For example, they write

“…the structural weaknesses in the GCM identified here suggest that a reliance on the policy implications from the general circulation models, and in particular the primary emphasis on controlling global CO2 emissions, is misguided (a conclusion which others have reached by following a different line of argument, see Pielke Sr. et al., 2009).”


Best regards


Aussie Pete