Extreme global warming, or cooling, is the norm on Earth

Extreme global warming and temperature extremes are not only nothing new, they are our experience

Miami|Photo Credit J.D. Brown

Al Gore, the world’s number one purveyor of doom and gloom once wrote:

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

This really is the argument isn’t it? That the temperature increase that the climate cult led by their high priests such as Al Gore are prophesying is caused by mankind  and their nasty CO2 which will destroy conditions for humans and other life forms on Earth. Because of this Gore says that we are jeopardizing some idyllic climate condition :

…while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

So enamoured was Gore of this “pleasant” temperature he considers so important to the human race that shortly after writing this he went out andbought a $9 million mansion in Southern California where the average temperature is very close to his “pleasant 59.” As Noel Sheperd observed at the time, “Certainly not bad for a guy who supposedly was worth between one and two million dollars in 2000.”

Most of the rest of the world’s inhabitants are not able to live in such “pleasant” temperatures simply because the Earth is really not a “pleasant 59 degrees.” The global temperature is as diverse as the people who live on it.

Toronto Canada is the 52nd largest metropolitan area in the world with a population of over six million people in other words by Gore’s standards we would consider it “habitable”.  About 1500 miles to the south of Canada’s largest city is Miami an American city of comparable size, Miami is the 58th largest metropolitan area in the world.  Like all  of the world’s large cities these two cities have many similarities but one thing they do not have in common is their climate.

Toronto has an average temperature of 45.9 degrees while Miami’s average temperature is a balmy 77.2 degrees a difference of 41.3 degrees. This is their average temperatures when you look at the extremes the differences are even more noticeable. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Toronto is -31.4 degrees while the warmest temperature ever recorded in Miami is 98 degrees an amazing difference of  129.4 degrees.  These extreme conditions exist in cities where people are obviously able to live and  function normally.

Consider that the average annual temperature in Helsinki, Finland of 41 degrees is eleven degrees colder than the coldest temperature ever recorded in Bangkok, Thailand.  Residents of Helsinki live in an environment where the average temperature is 41 degrees while in Bangkok the resident’s live in an average temperature of 84 degrees neither of which is anywhere near Gore’s “pleasant 59.”

But you do not have to travel “around the world” to find extreme differences in temperatures, my experience proves this. Years ago I lived in the “great plains” of northeast Montana. One January an Arctic blast came sweeping down from Alberta and for several days we experienced temperatures well below 0. In fact for three days in a row the air temperature reached a low of -31 degrees and with the wind chill it was close to -50. But remarkably, but actually not, just six months later in July of the same year the temperature reached a 103 degrees. That is a 134 degree difference in temperature, not in different global “climate zones” but in the same location and in the same year. Now that is climate change!

The climate alarmist have conditioned us to look at minor changes in temperatures with foreboding. A half of degree celsius temperature increase over the course of more than a century is represented as some sort of harbinger of a coming global apocalypse. The fact that humans have  survived even thrived in divergent climates so far removed from the temperatures they warn us of is laughable.

read rest of article at Brenner Brief

The other possibility

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong? 

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

David Shukman, Science editor BBC

The idea that their theory is wrong is so foreign to believers in catastrophic climate change that they  refer to the obvious provable fact of the models being wrong as just a possibility rather than the reality it is. There is no doubt that the models are wrong, it is not a possibilityy it is a fact.

But so smitten are the true believers that they are having a difficult time coming to grips with what to many is a religious belief. They are trying to come to grips with with a situation that they have viewed as an article of faith. Consider this from the same David Shukman in the same article.

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before ( emphasis mine)

The reason the BBC editor who we assume is as well informed on climate change science as anyone had never heard of this "pause" scenario before is simply because it has never been a part of the narrative, or the theory.  This is easily provable.

In 2007, half way through the current "pause" in global warming, the IPCC released their most recent assessment report, Here is what they had to say about the short term outlook on global temperatures

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} ... 

... the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).

So the IPCC boldly claimed that there models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. In order to put that in perspective the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades. That was their projection. They even went so far as to say that there was already so much CO2  in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase.

They knew by 2007 that we had not kept CO2 at 2000 levels. In January of 2000 it was 369.14 by January of 2007 it had reached  382.49. But had we kept it at 2000 levels the IPCC projected that temperatures would still increase by 0.1 C per decade. Under no scenario that was presented in the IPCC AR4 report did they project a pause in warming either in the short or long term.

What  has actually happened, out in the real world? Global temperatures have increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C between 1998 and 2012 or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from previous warming by 0.13 C. So not only has the globe not warmed as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.

Of course all the wizards of smart are coming out now and telling us that this is all to be expected

Prof Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research at the University of Reading, said: "Within the field we have taken for granted that there will be variations in the rate of warming, it is totally accepted and is no surprise ...[it] would correct to say that wasn't the message that we communicated more widely and that probably is a failing."

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

Sutton even goes so far as to claim that a pause of 20 years was even projected in some models

Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

In other words he is now claiming that rather than the 0.2 degree per decade warming projected by the IPCC for the next two decades, the climate science community was always aware that there might be no warming whatsoever. Perhaps this is true but did they mention this important little caveat in their report? No they did not.  Do their projections in their "gold standard" assessment report reflect this possibility? They do not.

As David Shukman observed "I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before" so he inquired about this lack of communication.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So let's review. The climate science community through it's "gold standard" agency, informs the world that not only will global warming continue, it will accelerate. They made this pronouncement in the middle of what we now know was a "pause" in the warming. Prior to and following the release of their "prestigious" AR4 report there is not one word about the potential for a "pause" in the warming but in fact there are countless studies and stories claiming that the warming was worse than they had expected.

“The science is quite decisive,” said Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University. “There is a very robust consensus about the reality of climate change and the need to confront it quickly.”...

“Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon,” said Somerville.Officials around the globe aim to avoid warming Earth by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit compared to preindustrial times. The idea is to avoid a “tipping point” that causes catastrophic and irreversible changes to weather patterns and landscapes. 

Without a significant change in course, global warming could reach 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the scientists said Tuesday.

Nowhere in all these studies or countless press releases has there been any indication of a "pause" or future pause. In fact in the midst of the actual pause both the GISS and HadCrut the "KEEPERS" of the temperature records "updated" their data sets which significantly altered the global temperature records upwards. One wonders what the pause would have looked like had these "official records"  not been "updated". Actually you need not wonder, just compare the satellite readings to the GISS, HadCrut measurements.

So what is the other possibility? The other possibility is not a possibility at all -it is a fact. The actual global temperatures, irregardless of the measuring agency, has not been anywhere close to those projected by the IPCC and the climate science "consensus" community. Their model's calculations are wrong yet they continue to not only promote their output as being accurate, but also literally thousands upon thousands of scientific studies in varied fields are undertaken and promoted based on these model projection's false input.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Diminishing Returns and "THE DOUBLING"

The Ecconomist which until recently had been very much in the alarmist camp in the global warming debate but has recently taken a more neutral tone, has just published a chart purported to be from the forthcoming fifth assessment IPCC report. The chart shows their projections of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2.

This is the measure used by researchers of how much they expect the world’s average temperature to increase in response to particular increases in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to one table from the unpublished report, which was seen by The Economist, at CO2 concentrations of between 425 parts per million and 485 ppm, temperatures in 2100 would be 1.3-1.7°C above their pre-industrial levels. That seems lower than the IPCC’s previous assessment, made in 2007. Then, it thought concentrations of 445-490 ppm were likely to result in a rise in temperature of 2.0-2.4°C.

Here is the chart

 Given that the IPCC and other global warmists use 280 ppm as the "pre-industrial" level of atmospheric CO2, an actual doubling by their hypothesis will happen when CO2 reaches the 560 ppm level . So if this chart is their actual projection, a doubling of CO2 "from pre-industrial" levels will now cause a warming of between 2.0-2.4 deg C.

Note that the two figures that have been so much a part of the global warming narrative are starting to come into sink. First is the arbitrary "doubling of CO2" which has been the great Cassandra of the warmist for so many years and the more recent goal set in Copenhagen in 2009 to keep temperatures at  a two degree rise  globally. What a coincidence that once a political goal was set, the science followed.

The snowy, floody, hotty totty connection

Red River of the North flood at Fargo, April, 1897.

Remember a couple of years ago when President Obama who seems to be an expert on everything other than the Presidency, connected the North Dakota flooding in the spring of 2009 to "climate change"?

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

 Much was made of this at the time and since the past couple of winters have been particularly snowy in most of the northern tier states, the "consensus community" has had to develop a party line to account for conditions not generally associated with global warming. Thus we get endless pseudo-scientific analysis centered around the idea that a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture hence, more snow. A Master(ful) example

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.

 So I was not surprised when I ran across this little article, video of climate change induced flooding available at the link for the article. (emphasis mine)

Snow, Climate Change Adds To Flooding Woes In Fargo & Grand Forks, ND

Houses south of Grand Forks, North Dakota sit flooded as the Red River continues to rise. The national weather services says the river that borders Minnesota and North Dakota reached a preliminary crest at 49.87 feet on Thursday at Grand Forks. The river reaches eight miles wide or more at Oslo, Minnesota, which has become an island as the last roads to Oslo closed.

The National Weather Service says flooding will continue well into May. The area continues to experience wetter than normal winters because climate change is keeping the air warmer, which then contains more moisture.

The Red River crest at Grand Forks is the third highest on record The Coast Guard has a total of 54 people in the region to support the flood response operations. There are two airboats, two rescue helicopters, an aircraft and boat maintenance and support team. An additional 19 personnel comprise the incident management team located at Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi, St. Louis, Mo. U.S. Coast Guard photo.

Below: video from Fargo, North Dakota and Valley City, North Dakota as the rivers there were rising earlier this week.

So there you have it, the snowy, floody, hotty totty connection narrative simply put in a very concise and easily digestible form for public consumption.

Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to see exactly how this all meshed together with actual facts. So I went to our friends at NOAA, the keeper of the records for all things climate, (US version). Having a basic idea of where North Dakota is on the map, I chose the regional records (West North Central).

The first thing I wanted to check on was the winter precipitation for the region. Here is what I found.


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 1.87 Inches
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2011 Trend = -0.02 Inches / Decade

You will notice that since climate is supposed to be measured over long periods of time that the trend line over the past century plus is of decreasing precipitation in winter, not increasing. But then again the past three years have been slightly above that average. To be totally accurate

2011-2.61 inches
2010-1.94 inches
2009-2.26 inches

All above the 20th century average precipitation of 1.87 inches for the region. But again to be accurate the flooding in the upper mid-west, Fargo etc. is the result not only of the winter snow melt but also the March precipitation. I believe it is reasonable to say that the flooding represented by the story above as well as Obama's comments which were made in March of 2009 are the result of winter snowfall combined with March's precipitation. So let's look just at March


March 1901 - 2000 Average = 0.95 Inches
March 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.00 Inches / Decade 

A sight increase.  March precipitation for the region for the past three years looks like this;

2011-.93 inches
2010-.84 inches
2009-1.24 inces

So two of the last three years have had less than the 20th century average of .95 precipitation in the month of March.

Just for kicks and giggles let's add these up and see how drastic the precipitation has been for the past three years. The 20th century average of winter precipitation added to March precipitation is 2.82 inches. The past three years have been

2011-3.54 (+.72)
2010-2.78 (-.04)
2009-3.50 (+.68)

Well there you have it global warming is flooding Fargo North Dakota. The past three years have averaged 3.27 inches of precipitation for the region, an increase of .45 inches over the 20th century average for the three years.

All that extra heat in the atmosphere is soaking up the moisture and dumping it down on the upper Midwest reeking havoc on man and beast, not to mention the all important corn for ethanol crops.

How much have the winters warmed, well let's look shall we? Back to NOAA


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 19.43 degF
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.22 degF / Decade

Yes it certainly is getting warmer isn't it....well except for the past three years. Now isn't that interesting?

2011-17.7 deg F (-1.73)
2010-16.5 deg F (-2.93)
2009-19.2 deg F (-.2)

Being the simpleton that I am I would say that below normal temperatures would cause more snow in winter but then again I am not a scientist. After all the last three years have had above average winter precipitation right? And it has been colder than normal right? Therefore the colder weather has resulted in more snow.... right? Not according to climate scientist who can not have it rain....or snow on their parade.

Hey did you notice though, that way back, before the onslaught of automobiles they had snowy weather too? Let's take another three year period and see how that compares to 20th century averages, shall we? How about:

1916-2.56 inches (+.69)
1917-2.42 inches (+.55)
1918-2.83 inches (+.96)

What were the winter temperatures like in those very snowy winters before we heated the atmosphere with all our CO2?

1916-14.8 deg F (-4.63)
1917-12.8 deg F (-6.5)
1918-15.6 deg F (-3.7)

Now isn't that interesting, three below normal cold winters almost a hundred years ago produced three snowy winters in the Upper Midwest and three recent colder than normal winters also produced snowy winters in the same location. And the common factor is.....


Global Warming?
 
Just to be consistent here is the precipitation for March in those three years?

1916-1.03 inches (+.08)
1917- .96  inches (+.03)
1918- .71  inches (-.20)

Interesting enough, in trying to explain the recent snow, one of our Master climate scientist made this observation, "The old adage, 'It's too cold to snow,' has some truth to it," said Masters. "A colder atmosphere holds less moisture, limiting the snowfall that can occur."

Well if that is true then why is it that three of the coldest winters in the twentieth century in this region produced three of the snowiest winters? Not to mention the fact that the three years being discussed here in regards to flooding were all below normal in winter temperatures. Based on this theory of heat = moisture = increased winter snows =flooding why wasn't 1998-1999 the snowiest winter in the twentieth century since 1998 was supposedly the warmest year? But the fact is that the following winter there was below normal snow not only in the upper Midwest but across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

The idea that flooding in Fargo is the result of increased precipitation caused by more moisture in the atmosphere due to global warming is not born out by the historical record.  But what do facts have to do with it when you have a theory to maintain.

Intuitively people know that colder winters are more likely to produce snow than warmer winters, I doubt that but a tiny fraction of the human race that has ever walked the globe would argue with this, yet we are to trust that modern climate science has disproved that which centuries of observation has confirmed to be common sense, remarkable.

Oh by the way did you notice in the above graph that the coldest and warmest winters were thirteen years apart 1979 being the coldest 9.75 deg F and 1992 being the warmest 27.6 deg F.  A difference of 17.85 deg F for winter in just 13 years, now that is warming!  But look what has happened in the past 18 years:


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 19.42 degF
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1992 - 2011 Trend = -1.16 degF / Decade ;

If this trend continues we are in real trouble.

State of the Union

I just read that Oklahoma set an all time low temperature record.


BARTLESVILLE, Okla. - Records amount of snow have fallen across the state, and now records for low temperatures are starting to fall too. 

In fact, some temperatures across the state Thursday morning were lower than North Pole, Alaska, which was a balmy 16 degrees. 

In Bartlesville, the National Weather Service recorded the temperature reaching 28 degrees below 0, setting an all-time city record. 

The Oklahoma Mesonet released a statement saying Nowata reached -31 degrees. 

Whichever temperature is recorded, it will be an all-time low for Oklahoma.
The previous state record was -27 in Watts in 1930 and -27 in Vinita in 1909....

I remember that last year Maine set an all time record low as well. In fact it was a record low for all of New England. It got me wondering how many States have set cold temperature records  since the beginning of Man Made Global Warming. 

I know many may find it difficult to determine when Man Made Global Warming officially began, not me.I know precisely when Man Made Global Warming officially began, June 23, 1988 with the testimony of James Hansen before The US Senate.

So I decided to look up  extreme temperatures by state since that day which will live in laughability. The results were interesting:

Record State High Temperatures Since June 23, 1988

Arizona

128°F / 53°C

July 5, 2007*

Connecticut

106°F / 41°C

July 15, 1995

Nevada

125°F / 52°C

June 29, 1994*

New Mexico

122°F / 50°C

June 27, 1994

Oklahoma

120°F / 49°C

June 27, 1994*

South Dakota

120°F / 49°C

July 15, 2006*

Texas

120°F / 49°C

June 28, 1994*

*Also on earlier date or dates in that state

Pretty impressive huh? Seven states have set new highs since Man Made Global Warming began. However since, as they say, we are talking about unprecedented warming, that little asterisk becomes very significant doesn't it? Arizona's record highs have all been  within the advent of Man Made Global Warming.  However Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas other record highs were all well before Man Made Global Warming purportedly started. So in reality three states have set unprecedented records since the beginning of Man Made Global Warming. Now let's look at record cold temperatures

Record State Low Temperatures Since June 23, 1988

Illinois

-36°F / -38°C

January 5, 1999

Indiana

-36°F / -38°C

January 19, 1994

Iowa

-47°F / -44°C

February 3, 1996*

Maine

-50°F / -46°C

January 16, 2009

Minnesota

-64°F / -53.3°C

February 1996

Oklahoma

-31°F / -35°C

February 10, 2011

Rhode Island

-25°F / -32°C

February 5, 1996

Wisconsin

-55°F / -48°C

February 4, 1996

Unlike  record highs, nobody is claiming that cold weather is unprecedented (yet), so Iowa's tie means nothing. As you can see there have been more record cold temperatures set since the beginning of Man Made Global Warming than record highs. Also notice that the we have only had two record high temperatures set in states  this century, both of which were tied with earlier dates. However we have had two unprecedented cold records set in this century. That doesn't bode well for that accelerating claim, now does it?

Think I'm being unfair in declaring that James Hansen is the founder of Man Made Global Warming? OK we'll go back further, how about 50 years.

Additional Record State High Temperatures Since January 1, 1961 

Massachusetts 107°F / 42°C August 2, 1975

North Carolina

110°F / 43°C

August 21, 1983

Rhode Island

104°F / 40°C

August 2, 1975

Utah

117°F / 47°C

July 5, 1985

Washington

118°F / 48°C

August 5, 1961*

So we add another five states to the Hot category with four of them being unprecedented. Now let's go Cold.

Record State Low Temperatures Since January 1, 1961

Alabama

-27°F / -33°C

January 30, 1966

Alaska

-80°F / -62°C

January 23, 1971

Arizona

-40°F / -40°C

January 7, 1971

Hawaii

+12°F / -11°C

May 17, 1979

Kentucky

-34°F / -37°C

January 28, 1963

Massachusetts

-35°F / -37°C

January 12, 1981

Mississippi

-19°F / -28°C

January 30, 1966

New York

-57°F / -49°C

February 18, 1979

North Carolina

-34°F / -37°C

January 21, 1985

South Carolina

-19°F / -28°C

January 21, 1985

Utah

-69°F / -56°C

February 1, 1985

Virginia

-30°F / -34°C

January 22, 1985

Washington

-48°F / -44°C

December 30, 1968

So in the past 50 years thirteen additional states set cold temperature records.

Shall we summarize? By the way, none of the previous record highs listed in the first set of record highs (since 1988), were tied in the time frame between 1961 and 1988 they were all set earlier.

Total State record high temperatures set since June 23, 1988 

7 Total

3 Unprecedented

Total State record low temperatures set since June 23, 1988

8 Total

Total State record high temperatures set since Jan 1, 1961

13  Total

7 Unprecedented

Total State record low temperatures set since Jan. 1, 1961

21 Total

So there have been three times as many state cold temperature records  set  as there have been unprecedented high temperature records set in the past half century. 

So I officially declare the State Of The Union-

Cold