Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Trends

...
All flat-earth eccentrics aside, what have Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Annual Emissions been up to these days.

Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions
...

1,998 flat-earthers to screw in a lightbulb.

-
Surely, by now, we've all heard the one about "global temperature trends being flat since 1998."

But please tell us that you're not buying into the denial cr*pping point that 1998, of all other available starting points, was the beginning of a climate trend. We do want to respect you in the morning.

Our data show that 2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the 130 years of near‐global instrumental measurements – and the Southern Hemisphere had its warmest year in that entire period. Before discussing these data, and their reconciliation with regional cold anomalies, we must consider the time frame of comparison.

As we know, 1998 was the hottest, if not fit-to-be-tied, year since our industrial revolution started cranking out CO2 emissions like no tomorrow. So assigning that year as the start of a 12 year trend is quite arbitrary, if not deceptive. Why not 1997 or, better yet, 2000?

If we look back a century, we find cold anomalies that dwarf current ones. Figure 1 shows photos of people walking on Niagara Falls in 1911. Such an xtreme cold snap is unimaginable today. About a decade earlier, in February 1899, temperature fell to ‐2°F in Tallahassee, Florida, ‐9°F in Atlanta, Georgia ‐30°F in Erasmus, Tennessee, ‐47°F in Camp Clark, Nebraska, and ‐61°F in Fort Logan, Montana. The Mississippi River froze all the way to New Orleans, discharging ice into the Gulf of Mexico.

If you do, you're up against some pretty big climate guns.

The bottom line is this: the Earth has been in a period of rapid global warming for the past three decades. The assertion that the planet has entered a period of cooling in the past decade is without foundation. On the contrary, we find no significant deviation from the warming trend of the past three decades. NASA GISS Global Temperature Figures

Will Watts light up DotEarth?

*
And, if you find the inclination, here's a more progressive look:

Masters is much more generous to Watts than Watts has been the entire scientific community, which he has repeatedly accused of fraud and bad faith. Watts has responded on his website, but most of the response is non-substantive, process-related whining that appears to be contradicted by reporting by Andy Revkin at DotEarth. Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one

Just don't miss the comments there or on Andy Revkin's DOT EARTH where some salivating climate scientists await their afternoon feeding.

The ball is clearly in Mr. Watts’s court. The peer-reviewed literature awaits. On Weather Stations and Climate Trends

Think Tony'll show?
*

Cooling bias? Watts up with that?

*
Say, speaking of anti-science denial, did you have the good fortune to catch Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground & how the scientific analysis of the actual data shows Anthony Watts' with his head up his WUWT?

You didn't? Well, let's take a look at it together, shall we?

Dr. Jeff Masters posted his astute assessment of Watts & his XOM-funded co-conspirators-in-denial on his WunderBlog just the other day for all to see.

While Watts' publication by the Heartland Institute is a valuable source of information on siting problems of the U.S. network of weather stations, the publication did not undergo peer-review--the process whereby three anonymous scientists who are experts in the field review a manuscript submitted for publication, and offer criticisms on the scientific validity of the results, resulting in revisions to the original paper or outright rejection. The Heartland Institute is an advocacy organization that accepts money from corporate benefactors such as the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry, and publishes non-peer reviewed science that inevitably supports the interests of the groups paying for the studies. Watts did not actually analyze the data to see if taking out the poorly sited surface stations would have a significant impact on the observed 1.1°F increase in U.S. temperatures over the past century. His study would never have been publishable in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

So the dedicated expert climate scientists over at NOAA did a scientific study, peer-reviewed no less.

Fortunately, a proper analysis of the impact of these poorly-sited surface stations on the U.S. historical temperature record has now been done by Dr. Matthew Menne and co-authors at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

And Watt do you think the data, including Watts' own surfacestations.org's, actually shows when analyzed using scientific methods?

A cooling bias, we sh*t you not.

Dr. Menne's study computed the average daily minimum and maximum temperatures from the good sites and poor sites. While the poor sites had a slightly warmer average minimum temperature than the good sites (by 0.03°C), the average maximum temperature measured at the poor sites was significantly cooler (by 0.14°C) than the good sites. As a result, overall average temperatures measured at the poor sites were cooler than the good sites. This is the opposite of the conclusion reached by Anthony Watts in his 2009 Heartland Institute publication. New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one

Watts up with that!?!
*