C3

 'C3'  Charts  Videos  DataSources  BlogRoll    

Quotes  Bad Weather  Bad Predictions  Archvs./Catgrs.

'C3' the Skeptic	Blame it all on CO2	George Carlin on the 'Greens'

 

Greenland Temperature Study Challenges Climate Narratives: The Data Speaks

Recent analysis of MODIS satellite data (2000–2019) reveals Greenland’s surface temperatures remained remarkably stable, challenging narratives of rapid Arctic warming. The study, covering 31,464 observations across 36 sub-regions, found minimal long-term trends—only a slight cooling of ~0.05°C per decade, with three of four regions showing no significant change and the South region cooling slightly. This contrasts with expectations of accelerated warming, though seasonal patterns remained consistent.

The findings suggest factors beyond surface temperature, such as ocean currents or ice dynamics, may drive observed ice sheet changes. Ice-free areas showed higher average temperatures than ice-covered regions but neither displayed significant warming, challenging assumptions that ice-free regions would warm faster. The study aligns with other research indicating slowed warming since the 1990s, complicating climate model assumptions. 

While MODIS data has limitations (e.g., cloud cover), the results highlight complex Arctic climate dynamics, urging reevaluation of ice melt drivers and their implications for sea level projections. The analysis divided Greenland into four primary regions (North, Central-North, Central-South, South), each with nine sub-regions, using statistical methods to isolate long-term trends from seasonal variability. 

These results underscore the need for honest integration of such findings into climate science discourse, emphasizing the complexity of Arctic climate dynamics and demanding reassessment of current climate models.

The Myth of Energy "Transition": An Evidence-Based Reality Check

Despite 2024's celebrated growth in renewable energy (now 15% of global electricity), fossil fuels simultaneously hit all-time highs. This isn't an energy "transition"—it's an energy "addition."

Hydrocarbons still constitute 80% of the world's energy mix—barely down from 85% in 1990. The reality? Transitioning from fossil fuels is proving far more complex than projected.

Every major energy transformation throughout history has unfolded over decades, not years. Yet climate policies assume we can compress this timeline dramatically. Carbon emissions reached 37.4 gigatons in 2023—moving opposite to climate targets.

The U.S. set a goal for EVs to reach 50% of new car sales by 2030. Current reality? Just 10%—with automakers scaling back investments due to losses. Similarly, offshore wind production targets have been slashed by more than half.

The transition's estimated cost—$6 to $8 trillion annually by 2035—raises an obvious question: who pays? Meanwhile, nearly 600 million Africans lack basic electricity, prioritizing economic development over emissions reduction.

Russia's Ukraine invasion delivered a harsh lesson in energy security, with countries like Germany partially reversing green transitions to secure energy supplies.

Clean energy depends heavily on critical minerals facing significant supply constraints, with China controlling 80% of global supply chains—creating security concerns for Western nations.

Meanwhile, electricity demand surges with AI, data centers, and EVs straining grids. U.S. electricity consumption is projected to double by 2050.

The energy transition isn't failing—it's unfolding at the pace that physical and economic realities dictate. Successful navigation requires acknowledging these constraints rather than denying them.

Historical evidence makes one thing clear: energy transformations happen at their own pace—regardless of political declarations to the contrary.

Hydrogen Hype: Unpacking the Challenges and Risks of a Controversial Energy Alternative

Does hydrogen really deserve all the hype as the next best green energy source or is it just another green-unicorn to dupe the masses?

 

 

The concerns about Green Hydrogen: Green hydrogen, often touted as a clean energy source, presents significant risks that cannot be overlooked. Its propensity to explode when not handled properly raises serious safety concerns. Additionally, its higher combustion temperature can lead to the production of nitrogen dioxide - it is speculated that nitrogen dioxide potentially produces 37-times more warming than CO2.

This pollutant also has been linked to serious health issues, including childhood asthma, making the promotion of hydrogen as a green alternative questionable.

Thus, the environmental implications of hydrogen must be carefully considered, as they may counteract the benefits it is purported to offer.

Comparison to Natural Gas: When comparing hydrogen to natural gas, it becomes evident that hydrogen may not be the environmentally friendly alternative it is marketed as. While natural gas is often criticized for its emissions, hydrogen's potential to produce more nitrogen dioxide complicates the narrative.

The environmental impact of hydrogen, particularly in terms of atmospheric pollution, raises alarms. The idea that hydrogen could be a cleaner substitute for natural gas is challenged by evidence suggesting that its use may exacerbate pollution problems rather than alleviate them.

Hydrogen as an Energy Source: Despite its drawbacks, hydrogen is currently viewed as a crucial component in the transition to renewable energy. It is seen as the only viable option to back up intermittent sources like wind and solar power. However, this reliance on hydrogen must be scrutinized. While it may serve as a bridge in the energy transition, the long-term sustainability and practicality of hydrogen as a primary energy source remain uncertain.

The infrastructure required to support hydrogen use is still in its infancy, and significant advancements are needed to make it a reliable energy solution.

Challenges with Hydrogen Infrastructure: Integrating hydrogen into existing natural gas systems presents numerous challenges. The physical and chemical properties of hydrogen make it leak more readily than natural gas, raising safety concerns. The potential for leaks not only poses risks to human safety but also undermines the environmental benefits that hydrogen is supposed to provide.

The authors of this new research paper emphasize that the transition to hydrogen will require significant retrofits and replacements, which could be costly and complex.

Manufacturing and Production Issues: The production of hydrogen is fraught with challenges. While there are numerous proposed projects aimed at scaling up low-carbon hydrogen production, each method comes with its own set of difficulties. The current knowledge highlights that no production method is universally beneficial to the climate, suggesting that the quest for a clean hydrogen solution is more complicated than it appears.

This complexity raises questions about the feasibility of hydrogen as a sustainable energy source.

Critique of Current Energy Strategies: The reliance on hydrogen as a solution for energy storage has been met with skepticism. The Royal Society's recent report, which initially considered hydrogen a viable option, ultimately highlighted the impracticalities of large-scale hydrogen infrastructure.

The need for extensive networks of pipelines and storage facilities raises concerns about cost and feasibility, particularly in regions where suitable geological formations for storage are limited.

Conclusion on Energy Alternatives: In conclusion, the search for a cost-effective and reliable alternative to hydrocarbons remains elusive. The text warns that if ideologues continue to push for hydrogen without addressing its inherent challenges, society may face severe energy shortages.

The call for a balanced approach to energy policy is crucial, as the transition to a sustainable energy future must consider the practicalities and limitations of all available options.

The above is a summary of this article.

An Explanation of Elites' Plan To Use CO2 Restrictions Against Humanity

This video explains how the world's technocrats, billionaires and giants corporations will employ natural asset companies, carbon credits, carbon taxes, carbon restrictions, and central bank digital currencies (CBDC) to facilitate global control over all nations and their citizens. The rabid fear-mongering of climate change doomsday propaganda is the ruling class elites' justification for their plan is to severely reduce individual freedoms and liberties.

 

The video was inspired by a lengthy Twitter ('X') thread by @_Escapekey_  that can be found here. 

The Perils of Ignoring Autocorrelation: Distorting True Cause & Effect Conclusions

In research fields ranging from climate to seismology, analysts routinely examine time series data—records of how variables like temperatures change or micro-seismic signals change over time. Identifying meaningful patterns in these series provides insight for everything from stock predictions to climate models.

However, a common pitfall arises in time series analysis: the problem of autocorrelation.

More specifically, in a time series that exhibits autocorrelation, the data values at any given time are statistically dependent on prior values in the same series. This violates the assumption of independence that many statistical techniques rely on.

Positive autocorrelation implies that a high value in the series will likely be followed by another high value, and vice versa for low values. This may reflect an underlying cyclical pattern or inertia in the system generating the time series.

While sometimes subtle, ignoring autocorrelation can severely undermine the validity of analysis results for just about every area of research that deals with time series data.

The climate research field, for example, is rife with datasets that exhibit excessive autocorrelation due to non-stationarity data.

In the simplest of explanations, non-stationarity data refers to the concept that patterns and properties are not stable over time. They change or shift instead of staying the same. For example, if you measure the temperature each month and the average temperature starts getting higher over time, that data is non-stationary. The average is changing instead of being steady.

Numerous scientific and commercial research projects work with non-stationarity data, which can lead to autocorrelation and negatively affect factual evaluation and understanding. Besides climate research, these fields of study consist of:

- Finance - Stock prices, exchange rates, interest rates, etc.
- Macroeconomics - GDP, unemployment, inflation rates.
- Demographics - Population, birth rates, migration data.
- Econometrics - Supply/demand curves, sales forecasts.
- Signal Processing - Network traffic data, audio/video signals.
- Neuroscience - EEG brain wave recordings, neural spike trains.
- Meteorology - Precipitation, pressure, wind speed time series.
- Oceanography - Sea level measurements, wave heights.
- Seismology - Earthquake occurrence rates, fault displacements.
- Astronomy - Flux measurements of astronomical objects, solar activity.

Autocorrelation from non-stationarity data arises for multiple reasons. Many systems exhibit inherent inertia and "memory"—today's  value is influenced by yesterday’s. Gradual shifts, like trends, also induce autocorrelation. Cyclical forces like seasons impose autocorrelated oscillations. And measurement issues can artificially introduce autocorrelation.

Regardless of origin, the presence of autocorrelation can wreak havoc on analysis results if left unchecked.

Thus, it is incumbent on researchers to carefully identify, account for, and then correct the autocorrelation when necessary in order to achieve the desired outcome of an objective analysis and interpretation, regardless of the research domain.

For example, consider analyzing historical home sales data to forecast prices. Autocorrelation caused by inertia in housing markets would result in each month’s sales being correlated with prior months. Failing to account for this could lead to wildly overconfident price forecasts due to underestimated uncertainty.

Or take epidemiological models of disease spread, such as the recent COVID-19 outbreak. Autocorrelation from clustering of infections could distort transmission rate estimates across a region and globally if not addressed properly.

The bottom line is that improperly handling autocorrelation impairs the accuracy of short-term and long-term time series statistics and models.

More insidiously, autocorrelation can profoundly mislead causal analysis as a result of spurious correlations.

For instance, say a company's quarterly sales numbers exhibit autocorrelation due to economic cycles. Meanwhile, their advertising spending is steadily increasing each quarter. Simplistic analysis could suggest higher ad spending is driving sales growth. But the correlation is an artifact—sales are autocorrelated for macroeconomic reasons unrelated to the company's ads. Properly correcting for autocorrelation reveals the spuriousness.

And climate data provides many cautionary examples of how unaddressed autocorrelation can lead researchers astray, especially in determining causality, i.e., cause and effect.

Due to inertia in Earth's climate system, the atmosphere, and the oceans, temperature warming and rainfall measurements exhibit significant autocorrelation. Ignoring this can result in claiming strong predictive relationships between climate variables that are merely statistical artifacts.

A familiar and highly politicized example in the climate field is the slow but steady rise in long-term temperatures in relation to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The simple and easiest interpretation is that CO2 causes the warming.

But if the persistently high autocorrelation of the temperature time series is removed, both the statistical and causal relationship with CO2 disappear. (See the two included charts.)

Yet, consensus-narrative climate scientists will frequently ignore or minimize the severe autocorrelations that are due to non-stationarity and other characteristics.

Instead, they claim that most climate warming and weather phenomena are due to human CO2 emissions.

However, in reality, as the autocorrelation correction suggests, atmospheric CO2 may have some warming impact but is not the dominant force among the many climate variables that contribute.

While the complexities of time series analysis make autocorrelation a thorny issue, as this global temperature and CO2 example indicate, there are multiple well-established techniques to detect and mitigate it.

For example, transforming data by simply differencing between consecutive points can help undo the autocorrelation issues. (See the two included charts.)

The key to avoiding the perils of autocorrelation is the requisite due diligence to identify and, if necessary, correct the autocorrelation as a mandatory first step in any time series investigation.

The benefits of removing autocorrelation from a time series of data are many. Benefit examples include:

1. Allows for Better Statistical Testing:
- Many statistical tests and models assume independence between data points.
- Autocorrelation violates this assumption and can lead to incorrect confidence intervals, p-values, etc. Correcting for autocorrelation reduces the risk of biased parameter estimates and improves the accuracy of models.

2. Reveals True Relationships and Correlations:
- Autocorrelation can obscure or inflate relationships between variables that are truly independent. Removing autocorrelation clarifies the true correlations.

3. Allows for Causal Analysis:
- Autocorrelation makes it difficult to infer causal relationships between variables. Removing autocorrelation helps isolate the true impact of explanatory variables on the outcome variable over time.

4. Facilitates Signal Extraction:
- Autocorrelation acts as a smoothing filter that blurs the underlying signal. Eliminating autocorrelation helps recover the true signal and patterns.

5. Enables Identification of Exogenous Shocks:
- Major shocks and disruptions are easier to detect in the absence of autocorrelation smoothing effects. Provides insights into structural breaks.

6. Enhances Accuracy in Long-Term Planning:
- For time series data used in long-term planning or strategic decision-making, accurate models are essential. Correcting for autocorrelation helps ensure that the models used for planning are reliable and produce realistic forecasts.

7. Preserves Scientific Validity and Integrity:
- In scientific research, correcting for autocorrelation helps maintain the scientific validity and integrity of the research.

While autocorrelation may seem arcane to the general public, the benefits that accrue from its identification and proper addressing are significant.

Despite the benefits of proper treatment, many researchers still choose to ignore it, and doing so puts policymakers and citizens in jeopardy as autocorrelation can easily bias decision-making towards ineffective solutions and costly failures due to a misunderstanding of the actual causes and effects.

In science and in policy, true cause and effect matter.

Scientific Empirical Evidence Under Attack: The Uniparty Embraces Falsehoods

It is simply no longer debatable that most Democrat politicians, and quite a few Republicans, have chosen to turn their backs on scientific factual evidence, and instead, they now embrace falsehoods that support a wide variety of Uniparty establishment political narratives and desires.

Many such falsehoods are solely in the realm of politics, such as the past laughable beliefs that Trump is a Russian agent or that the Jan. 6 protest-riot on Capitol Hill was an "armed insurrection," both of which have been thoroughly debunked.

Those types of political untruths and smears can do much damage, but even potentially more damaging over the long run are science falsehoods that are spread, which completely undermine the bedrock foundation of science—empirical evidence. The end result is the permanent 'Idiocracy' governance.

This loss of faith in bedrock facts not only terminally harms the scientific method, but it also makes a hash of policymaking necessary to establish a sound foundation of solutions for any given societal issue.

For example, the irresponsible narrative that climate change is an 'existential threat' to humanity is not based on any known empirical scientific evidence. Even the UN's own head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who is in the best position to know, states that the hyped existential threat is not credible.

There are no actual facts that support the insidious propaganda of climate doomism.

Another current example of the ruling establishment's belief, and ignorance, is that all of America's energy needs can be met with free and abundant solar and wind renewable sources. But as major industrial nations have discovered, solar and wind are literally unable to provide the requisite baseload of reliable 24/7/365 dispatchable electricity.

Since both solar and wind are intermittent energy sources, they are not abundant when most needed.

And as far as being 'free' energy, nothing could be further from the factual evidence of the U.S., UK, and German power markets. Solar and wind require massive taxpayer subsidies, and in return, taxpayers are hit with ever-increasing electricity rates.

Our final illustration of a global disdain for accepted scientific facts is the swift creation of the "COVID Cult" by Uniparty politicians seeking to exert total micromanagement of citizens' lives. This anti-democratic cult required a complete rejection of all scientific information about pandemic illnesses and validated health preventive measures.

Completely lacking in empirical support were the following authoritarian measures: prohibiting economic activity; implementing statewide lockdowns; closing all schools; limiting social interactions between people; mandating mask use; imposing a 6-foot social distance; and requiring mass vaccinations during a pandemic using a new technology dubbed a "vaccine" that had not been thoroughly tested in compliance with long-established guidelines.

The government elites who embraced the COVID frenzy utterly ignored all of our civilization's prior experience, research, and policy knowledge on infectious diseases.

Moreover, despite all the subsequent policy failures, big-government politicians continued to deny the convincing scientific evidence that COVID-19 was a treatable viral infection with a mortality risk similar to that of influenza.

These examples beg the question as to why so many Democrats and Republicans ignore the empirical realities in favor of propagandist narratives and shoddy cultist "science."

Regardless of which issue, be it COVID-19, energy, or climate change, the fundamental driving force behind the Uniparty's concerted attack on science and empirical evidence is simply the desire for increased control over the government by the ruling elites and increased micromanagement capabilities for the unelected bureaucrats—both of which are in direct opposition to our democratic preferences and ideals.

This posting and video were inspired by this excellent 'Tablet' article.

Global Warming Narrative Unravels: Atmospheric CO2 Level Changes Do Not Cause Atmosphere Temperature Changes

Based on satellite empirical evidence over the last 30 years, the simple answer is 'No', the lower troposphere temperature changes are not correlated with changes in atmospheric CO₂  levels.

This first chart presents the moving 12-month changes for both the UAH satellite lower troposphere (LT) and NOAA's atmospheric CO₂ levels (ppm).

A quick first glance at the plotted data suggests there may be a decent match between CO₂ changes and LT temperature changes. But that is not the case at all, as the statistical correlation between the two is abysmally low, with an R-squared of almost zero +0.0854.

The second chart is more revealing of the lack of
correlation between the two variables. It plots the moving 2-year average of both the LT temperature changes and CO₂ level changes.

The 2-year simple averaging of the data variables provides a better view of any relationship between LT temperature changes and changes in CO₂ levels, as well as providing visual clues as to why the lack of correlation exists.

It is clear on the second chart that the linear trends of the two variables are moving in opposite directions over time.

While atmospheric CO2 changes are monotonously increasing with a positive trend—i.e., an upward slope—over 30 years, the changes in LT temperatures show a steady negative (downward slope) trend in magnitude.

The R² between the 2-year averages of the two variables is even lower at a meager +0.0382.

In addition, a closer visual comparison of the two-year averages suggests that more often than not, significant temperature increases/decreases precede significant respective changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels, and that is the complete opposite of the "consensus" narrative.

A fair and objective assessment of this empirical evidence indicates that warming in the atmosphere is more likely to be influenced by other factors with multiple times greater impact than the trace gas CO₂ from human emissions.

The most recent research by scientists is seriously challenging the belief that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming on land and in the atmosphere. This study and this one are the most recent examples of scientific research challenging the CO₂ orthodoxy.

Additional global, regional & historical temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and chart plot. Source for lower troposphere temperature data. Source for CO2 data.

U.S. Climate 'Existential Threat' Still AWOL

NOAA's gold-standard USCRN climate monitoring system has been updated with latest data through November 2023, and there is a surprise in the context of the "hottest" year narrative being pushed by legacy media.

The adjacent chart of monthly maximum temperatures reveals that the U.S. lower 48 states have been on a very slight cooling trend since September 2014. That's a total of 3,348 days (9 years and 2 months) of non-warming, even with the past several months of warmer temperatures and despite the large U.S. CO2 emissions.

As a result, 2023 max temperatures pale in comparison to those experienced in 2015 and 2016. Even the 1930s had higher maximum temperatures.

In addition, and literally, CO2 levels have had zero impact (R² = 0.0001) on maximum temperatures over the last 9+ years.

Over the last 25 years, the maximum temperature warming trend has been rather mild, at a per-year rate of +0.0007°C. If that long-term maximum temperature rate continues, the U.S. will have warmed by an unnoticeable +0.2°C by 2050.

That implies a typical hot 90F degree summer day in Chicago currently would be a 90.36F degree day in 2050. And a bitterly cold winter day of 0.0F degree would still be a bitter cold day in Chicago at 0.36F.

Obviously, we are not facing an "existential threat" or a "climate crisis."

Finally, by 2050, new energy technologies and efficiencies will exist, such as better utilization of geothermal energy sources, much improved battery technology for grid storage, more efficient transmission of electricity over the grid, advanced nuclear energy solutions, and so on. Current innovation research by the year 2050 will alleviate both the real and imagined concerns about the impact on the climate and civilization of human CO2 emissions.

Additional global, regional & historical temperature charts. Notes: Excel used for all calculations and chart plot. Source for maximum temperature data. Source for CO2 data.

A Brief Review: Causes of The EU Energy Crisis

2022 was a catastrophic year for energy in Europe, with skyrocketing household energy bills, closed industrial plants, bankrupt firms, and exorbitant costs for electricity and natural gas for both individuals and businesses. The ruling elites of Europe have taught us that relying solely on imported natural gas, wind, and solar energy is a costly and dangerous energy strategy. You cannot increase the wind and solar power in the event of a low-wind year, a harsh winter, an embargo, or a conflict.

European nations have been increasingly reliant on a mix of sporadic solar and wind energy as well as natural gas throughout the past 20 years due to the closure of conventional power plants and legislation supporting renewable energy. Thirty in Germany and thirty-four in the United Kingdom were among the more than a hundred nuclear facilities that had shuttered or were slated to close. Twenty-three countries declared they would phase out coal at the same time. By 2021, natural gas, wind, and solar energy accounted for 48% of Germany's electricity production, and 63%, 64%, and 78% of the electricity used in Italy, the UK, and the Netherlands.

An increasing amount of the energy on the continent came from imports. By the year 2000, Europe was producing 44% of its petroleum and 56% of its natural gas. However, rather than employing hydraulic fracturing to increase oil and gas production, the area decided to invest in solar and wind power. By 2021, only 37% of Europe's natural gas and 25% of its petroleum were produced domestically. Furthermore, a significant dependency was generated by growing imports from Russia.

The European Commission published a research in 2017 that found 49 European shale formations having either natural gas or oil, with significant shale potential found in Bulgaria, France, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. But instead of breaking any of these fields, Europe decided to rely on sporadic imports of natural gas, solar energy, and wind power.

Europe had a 20–30% decrease in wind-generated electricity in 2021 compared to historical averages. In order to make up for the decrease in wind power, utilities burnt gas to provide energy. Natural gas reserves were abnormally low by year's end, and gas prices were rising.

In 2019 and 2020, the average price of natural gas in Europe was between 13 and 18 euros per megawatt-hour (€/MWh). As the economy began to recover and wind power generation decreased in 2021, prices skyrocketed to 80 €/MWh by December of that same year. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, electricity prices also experienced a significant surge, increasing by a factor of six by the end of 2021.

Numerous energy supply companies went bankrupt due to the crisis. Thirteen UK natural gas companies, providing service to two million people, have ceased operations by February 2022. These companies were compelled by price controls to sell gas for less than their wholesale buying price. Due to the conflict in Ukraine, Russian gas giant Gazprom had to stop supplying gas, forcing Uniper SE, the biggest natural gas supplier in Germany, to purchase gas at outrageous costs.

Energy-intensive sectors were severely hit by high energy prices. Ammonia, which is required to generate urea and fertilizer containing ammonium nitrate, can only be produced with natural gas. In 2022, over 50% of Europe's output of ammonia and 33% of its nitrogen fertilizer was discontinued. Producers of metals were hammered, and half of Europe's output of zinc and aluminum had to shut down. Europe seems to be entering a new phase of deindustrialization as a result of energy policies.

While some countries are retreating from green initiatives, Net Zero and the shift to renewable energy are nevertheless supported by European elites and politicians. Gas prices have dropped to around 30 €/MWh, still double the price of 2020, and electricity prices are still almost triple that of 2020.

Notes: Above summary and brief video is based on this excellent article.

The Surprising Truth: King Coal's Resilience in the Face of Renewable Energy

The prevailing belief that renewable energy sources like wind and solar have swiftly surpassed fossil fuels in recent decades is a powerful narrative, but in reality, coal for power generation is still king across the globe.

Coal produced more than 35% of the world's electricity in 2022—the highest percentage of any source. At 22.7%, natural gas has the second-highest proportion. Hydroelectricity made up 14.9% of the total, nuclear power accounted for 9.2%, wind for 7.2%, solar energy for 4.5%, and a combination of geothermal and biomass energy for 3.6% were the other sources.

In the past, the total percentage of low-carbon energy sources—nuclear, hydropower, wind, and solar—peaked in 1995, the year of the UN climate summit. Remarkably, even after over 30 years and 27 UN climate summits, the proportion of low-carbon energy generated worldwide has stayed relatively stable into 2022.

Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, continue to produce the majority of the world's electricity. Amazingly, in 2022, the demand for coal even hit new all-time highs. In reaction to energy shortages and price surges, China, India, and Indonesia—the world's three largest producers of coal—are quickly increasing their output to record levels. The production of coal is expected to increase much more globally in 2023.

In the first half of 2023 alone, China approved more than 50 gigawatts of new coal power plant capacity. The goal of this coal development is to make up for China's decreased hydropower output as a result of severe droughts linked to the effects of climate change. Due to drought, the output of other significant hydroelectric producers, such as India and parts of Europe and North America, has also decreased, increasing the need for dispatchable coal and gas facilities to satisfy demand for energy.

Given that the United States accounts for less than 7% of worldwide coal use, factors that have driven drops in U.S. coal consumption over the past 15 years—such as cheap, abundant natural gas from fracking and growth in subsidized renewables—have not similarly altered global coal demand patterns.

Therefore, even though renewable energy sources like solar and wind are growing quickly, their bases are not very large. For the foreseeable future, fossil fuels—coal in particular—continue to account for the majority of the world's power generation. The vital development of energy storage, which is required to support the further expansion of intermittent renewables, is also hampered by a persistently high demand for coal.

Above text and video are based on this excellent article.

Climate Alarm or Misinformation? The Deceptive "60% Warming Faster" Statistic in Biden's 2023 National Climate Assessment Report

The Biden administration's Fifth National Climate Assessment (FNCA) report makes alarming claims about rapid warming across the United States that exceeds global warming by 60%, but examination reveals that claim is 100% bogus.

Experts have discovered various flaws in the FNCA, including its pineapple versus apple temperature comparison (i.e., comparing global land and sea temperatures to contiguous U.S. land-only temperatures) and the merging of geographically unrelated temperature datasets. These obvious flaws have produced a distorted outcome.

An excellent breakdown of the flaws and errors (manipulation-fraud?) can be found here, which includes a discussion of the U.S. metropolitan Urban Heat Islands impact.

Correcting for the truly misleading pineapple-to-apple comparison that found U.S. temperatures warming 60% faster than global temperatures since 1970 is rather straightforward. Simply eliminate the cherry-picked 'pineapple', so to speak.

The appropriate temperature comparison is global land temperatures versus U.S. land temperatures, which NOAA, the nation's chief climate agency, updates and publishes every single month.

This correct comparison reveals that since 1970, global land temperatures have actually risen 18% faster than U.S. land temperatures.

The FNCA's purposefully including global ocean temperatures in their comparison skews their results significantly. Oceans represent 71% of Earth's area, with a warming rate that is only 42% that of global land, since 1970. Thus, by including ocean temps in their comparison, it assures that U.S. land-only temperatures would have a faster warming rate.

By correcting for the FNCA mismatch, what are the results of comparing NOAA global land temperatures and U.S. land temperatures starting in January 1895?

This chart compares those two exact monthly temperature datasets. (Again, unlike the FNCA comparison, both datasets represent temperature readings from land-based climate stations.)

As the two plots and their respective linear trends make clear, since 1895, global land temperatures have been warming faster than U.S. contiguous land temperatures.

In fact, over the long run, 

global land temperatures have increased 1.4 times faster than U.S. land temps.

Another method of analysis is to examine shorter-term warming rates to determine how NOAA global land and U.S. land temperatures differ in rates of warming.

The second chart does this by plotting the moving 10-year (aka, moving 120-month) warming and cooling rates for both the monthly land datasets, starting with December 1904.

As is shown, from the end of 1904 through October 2023, both datasets exhibit a back-and-forth cycling between warming and cooling trends.

The chart also displays the 5-year averages of the moving 10-year trend comparison, which confirms the essential facts: consistently, global land temperatures over shorter periods have been warming faster than U.S. temperatures. From the early 1900s to present time, the mean of the global 5-year average exceeds the U.S. mean by 25%.

Furthermore, the FNCA report fails to mention that, per NOAA, contiguous U.S. temperatures have experienced a cooling trend since April 2011 (over 12 years) at a rate of -0.34°C per century, while during the same period, NOAA's global land temperatures have been warming at a rate of 4.17°C per century.

Conclusion: Global land temperatures have been warming faster than U.S. land temperatures since 1895; since 1970; over the last 30 years; over the last 20 years; and over the last 10 years. Because the authors of the Fifth National Climate Assessment needed to convince mainstream journalists of the narrative that U.S. climate warming was the opposite of reality, they recklessly chose to ignore the official published NOAA temperature records. As a result, the FNCA's foundational climate statistic - "U.S. warming 60% faster than the world" - is a blatant fabrication that puts into question every other extreme claim the report makes. 

Below is a sampling of major news sources on the FNCA report's very questionable findings that were published without any apparent fact checking. (links archived)

Fortune

MSNBC

New York Post

Yahoo

Boston Globe

ABC News

Additional global, regional & historical temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plots. Source for NOAA's monthly global land temperature dataset; and source for NOAA's monthly U.S. national contiguous land temperature dataset. NOAA's national dataset Fahrenheit values were converted to Celsius in order to establish (i.e. calculate) Celsius anomalies from the 1901-2000 monthly baseline averages.

"Ice"-Breaking News: Climate Experts Reveal Startling Admission About Arctic Sea Ice

[Click on image to watch brief video.]

Arctic sea ice, a potential marker of global warming, experienced a shift in the late 1990s called the Arctic Shift. Initially, the 1980s and 1990s saw moderate declines in September Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE).

However, after the 1997 climate shift, a rapid decline set in, leading to "consensus" concerns about a potential ice-free Arctic.

Computer models predicted this outcome by 2040, triggering much public anxiety.

More recent research now suggests that 60% of the September SIE decline since 1979 may be due to atmospheric circulation changes. Additionally, persistent Arctic summer cloud cover has mitigated the ice-albedo feedback, slowing the decline since 2007 unexpectedly and contrary to predictions.

Thus, despite the approved consensus narrative, uncertainty persists among climate researchers regarding the natural climate shift influence versus the human influence on overall sea ice change and what direction Arctic sea ice will take in the future.

And then the unexpected recovery of sea ice in 2013 truly challenged the alarmist predictions. With the original 7-year pause now extending to 17 years that means there was only a 10% probability of that taking place.

This implies that past sea ice predictions were 90% inaccurate, in turn raising significant concerns about climate model reliability.

In June 2023, promoting more anxiety, global headlines warned of ice-free Arctic summers by the 2030s, irrespective of emission reduction efforts, based on a a new peer-reviewed study.

Unfortunately, this study relied on data only up to 2019, ignoring available 2020-22 data. Model projections for 2021 and 2022 significantly differed from observed data, prompting scrutiny and questions as to why the study was approved for publication in the first place.

Clearly, policymakers and the public grapple with challenges when relying on inaccurate computer model projections. Studies that are produced by flawed computer model predictions pose serious potential consequences that highlight the need for thorough evaluation and transparency in climate research. (source of information for above & video)

Is America's Electric Grid Ready For The Shock of Biden's "Green" EV Plans?

 

(click on image to watch short video)

Based on this video, there are serious issues to overcome if EVs are ever to become the majority of the U.S. auto fleet.

Key points from video:

- The electric grid is not equipped to handle the increased power demand from electric vehicle charging stations and intermittent renewable energy sources.
- The National Electric Reliability Corporation and Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioners have expressed concerns about the Biden administration's push for electrification.
- Technical issues related to electric vehicles must be addressed before the grid can effectively support millions of electric cars and trucks.
- The proposed regulations, including the requirement for carbon capture and storage technology, may lead to the closure of a significant portion of the nation's fossil fuel power plants.
- The early retirement of dispatchable power plants raises concerns about the reliability of the grid.
- The United States would need to significantly increase its production of renewable energy to compensate for the loss of capacity from coal and natural gas facilities.
- The Biden administration's goal of having a large number of new electric vehicles on the road within the next decade will require more electricity than the American electric grid is currently capable of providing.
- There is a lack of preparation to overcome the physical, technical, and financial challenges associated with implementing the Biden administration's climate-friendly policies. (source of information)

October 16, 2023: Recent Tweets With 'C3' Charts

Below are multiple charts used in recent Twitter ('X') tweets (posts) regarding climate and "global warming".

 

Click on image to enlarge & for best resolution	Click link below each image for Tweet ('X' post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)
Tweet ('X' Post)	Tweet ('X' Post)

Sept. 2023: U.S. Climate Warming Update

As of the end of September 2023, using NOAA's state-of-the-art climate monitoring system, USCRN, the two charts below provide the status of U.S. temperatures from "global warming" since the 2005 inception of USCRN monitoring.

This first chart simply plots the USCRN temperature anomalies and then adds linear trends for two rather distinct temperature response periods to the climate.

Period#1 (77 months) reveals a significant cooling trend, and Period#2 over the last 12+ years (148 months) has a very tiny cooling trend.

A big surprise is the fact that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 months have experienced a cooling trend while at the same time the "global" temperatures, per satellite monitoring, have experienced relatively large temp increases from a robust warming trend.

 

This major divergence in temperature responses reinforces the concept that there is no such thing as global warming. What does exist is regional warming and cooling that varies substantially across different time spans.

The second chart depicts the actual strength of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and U.S. temperatures over the entire period of 225 months (18.75 years).

Based on an R² of +0.02 between the two climate variables, there is no correlation, which can be summarized by the following: CO2 has little, if any, impact on U.S. climate warming or monthly temperatures. (Click on either image to enlarge.)

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Note: Source for USCRN temperature data; source for CO2 data. Excel used for all calculations and plotting.

Key Fingerprint of Rapid Acceleration of Global Warming Is Missing

One of the key fingerprints - aka 'tenets' - of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is that fossil fuel combustion emissions will create a mid-troposphere tropical hotspot due to a surplus of trapped CO2 molecules. The hotspot warming then initiates positive climate feedbacks that amplifies the warming trend, which is predicted to be robustly higher than the warming trend on Earth's surface.

But has that taken place as predicted?

Since December 1978, satellites have monitored the mid-troposphere, and the evidence shows that global surface temperatures have in reality been warming at a rate that is nearly two times as fast (1.9x) as that of the hypothetical "amplified" tropical mid-troposphere warming rate.

This reversal of the expected outcome is contrary to the experts' hypothesis.

Compounding this failure of this AGW hypothesis tenet is the empirical evidence that there has been a very minor cooling/flat trend in the mid-troposphere tropics since August 2013.

This modest cooling happened in spite of a huge amount of CO2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other GH gases, such as methane from cows.

Also, this 10-year period of slight cooling took place even with the two large El Niño temperature spikes of 2014–2016 and 2018–2019. Plus, another new spike of temperatures is currently taking place in 2023 from the developing El Niño, as seen in this chart.

The second chart is a scatter plot that allows for the calculation of the R2 relationship strength between the two variables, CO2 atmospheric levels and the mid-troposphere tropic temperature anomalies.

A typical strong relationship would produce a R2 of at least +0.70.

In this case, the R2 = +0.0001.

(click on image to enlarge)

That microscopic R2 indicates there is no relationship between atmosphere CO2 and tropical temperatures in the mid-troposphere.

That is a completely unexpected outcome that undercuts the hypothesis that the trace CO2 gas will have a powerful impact on current and future climate temps, especially in the region of the predicted atmospheric tropical hotspot.

And without the requisite AGW 'hotspot', the likelihood of the amplified rapid acceleration of warming from the climate's positive feedback mechanisms becomes a very possible non-event.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Note: Excel used for all calculations and plotting. Source of UAH satellite monthly mid-troposphere temperature anomalies. Source for CO2 monthly data. 

UN's Climate Porn Ignores Climate Reality of Empirical Evidence

In their effort to persuade the public that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are broiling the planet, UN chief, Antonio Guterres, and his globaltarian comrades spread a narrative of fringe climate porn, such as ClimateBreakdown, ClimateChaos, or GlobalBoiling.

However, they are all ignoring actual scientific empirical evidence that powerfully contradicts this narrative propaganda.

Importantly, throughout the past 8+ years, climate expert projections and their climate models of the global warming trend have been grievously inaccurate. This incredible inaccuracy is hidden from the public by the UN, by the government-funded scientists, and by the mainstream legacy press.

Chart #1 compares the actual slight cooling of the world with the one predicted by "expert" climate scenario models.

(The chart's RCP8.5 scenario model results (red curve) are publicized by those spreading climate change disaster propaganda, and unfortunately, often used by real policymakers.)

Significantly, this 8+ year comparison clarifies just how inaccurate climate models can be when challenged by real-world climate observations.

The inaccuracy stems from the fact that climate models are based on the primary belief that CO2 emissions, from the combustion of fossil fuels, are the major force that produces global warming, which leads to "dangerous" climate change.

Thus, the climate models' dependency on CO2 - a trace greenhouse gas - is spectacularly evident when examining correlations, such as that depicted in chart #2.

The RCP8.5 scenario's model temperature anomaly variation is almost entirely explained (R² = 0.8698) by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

However, when the same correlation analysis is done with NOAA's real-world temperature anomalies, a much different result emerges.

Chart #3's scatter plot has an R² of 0.0000, which strongly indicates real climate temperatures are divorced from the additional CO2 being added to the atmosphere.

Yet, regardless of the above climate empirical facts, the UN chief and others continue to push the anti-science belief that every single molecule of the CO2 greenhouse gas causes more global warming.

And the result of this official CO2 fear-mongering propaganda is the situation where a vocal activist minority truly believes there exists a global #ClimateCrisis; a #ClimateEmergency; a #ClimateBreakdown; a #GlobalBoiling; #ClimateChaos; or even an #ExistentialThreat. (These Twitter 'X' hashtags confirm a wide range of CO2 paranoia, fringe fears, exaggerations and wild claims that are being generated from the official UN PR narrative.)

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Note: Excel used for all calculations and plotting. Source of NOAA monthly global temperature anomalies. Source for CMIP5 RCP8.5 model anomalies.  Source for CO2 monthly data. The correlation scatter plots x-axis represents the rolling 12-month total CO2 ppm growth, starting with the 12-month's growth prior to January 2015.

"Global Warming": California's Lawsuit Against Big Oil Suffers From Lack Of Actual Warming Trend

California's new lawsuit against Big Oil revolves around the state's allegation that oil executives knew that the CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels caused dangerous global warming. Except when it doesn't.

NOAA's climate monitoring network updates California's temperature measurements every month. And as the end of August 2023, California's average daily maximum temperatures for each month reveals there has been no warming trend since December 2010.

Zero warming trend in spite of the injection of approximately 400 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since 2010.

Visually, it's obvious that maximum temperatures have been in a decline mode for an extended period.

Plus, as the bottom chart reveals, there currently exists no correlation (R² < +0.01) between atmospheric CO2 levels and maximum temperatures.

With the lack of any recent empirical evidence that CO2 is producing a dangerous and rapid warming trend, the lawsuit would appear to be on very shaky ground in terms of scientific accuracy.

(click on to enlarge)

Interesting fact. NOAA reports that the month/year when California had its highest daily maximum average was way back in July 1931, well before the era of large industrial/consumer CO2 emissions.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Notes: Source of California maximum temperature data. Source of CO2 data. Excel used for all calculations & plots. The right axis of chart represents the monthly continuous accumulated increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm for the prior 12 months.

U.S. Maximum Historical Temperatures Versus August 2023 & Correlation With CO2

In regards to U.S. maximum temperatures, the first chart displays the historical maximum monthly temperature values for the United States as published by NOAA, similar to this prior article about historical precipitation. (Note that the August 2023 maximum temperature is shown as a green dot on the chart.)

And the bottom chart is a scatter plot for the last 60 years of monthly maximum temperature anomalies along with the corresponding monthly atmospheric CO2 levels.

The scatter plot includes a best fit regression line, which provides the basis for the strength of the relationship calculation (R² = +0.098) between the two variables, temperature anomalies and CO2 levels.

With the R² being a minuscule +0.098 for the 60-year period, it objectively indicates a nonexistent relationship between U.S. maximum temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

And since statistics demonstrate that CO2 levels have little effect on U.S. temperatures, it follows that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels into the atmosphere have little to no effect.

(click on to enlarge)

Note: Source for max temperature data; source for CO2 data. Excel used for all calculations and plotting.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

U.S. Precipitation & CO2: August 2023 Versus Historical Record

The monthly historical climate records that NOAA maintains and updates each month indicates that current U.S. precipitation levels are in the mainstream of historical measurements.

Since the record precipitation (4.47 inches) of May 2019, the average monthly precipitation has been 2.54 inches versus the last 60-year's mean of 2.58 inches. (See top chart.)

The bottom chart is a scatter plot of monthly precipitation amounts and the corresponding monthly atmospheric CO2 levels. The plot includes a best fit regression line.

The R² of +0.004 between CO2 levels and precipitation amounts indicates that there is no relationship between these two climate variables over the last 60 years.

U.S. precipitation levels are a product of natural weather/climate patterns. They are not due to the burning of fossil fuels.

 

(click on to enlarge)

Local, state, & federal politicians that say CO2 emissions are the cause of large or small precipitation events are part of the problem -  they are $$$ hungry climate change grifters under the influence of special interests.

Note: Source for precipitation data; source for CO2 data. Excel used for all calculations and plotting.

Climate Reality Debunks Latest Antarctic Warming Hysteria

Climate researchers seem to be always producing studies that say the Antarctic is warming too fast and presents a catastrophic threat, and then news outlets blindly report the hype.

But as usual, the actual real-world Antarctic measurements disseminated by the professionals of climate monitoring debunk this latest hysteria that the fear-mongering Guardian is promoting.

Utilizing the NOAA surface and UAH lower troposphere datasets, both report a flat warming/cooling trend for 36+ years, since May 1987.

Besides these datasets popping the hyped-puffery of Antarctic "rapid" warming, they also confirm that "global" warming is not really global. There is indeed regional warming, but "global" infers the entire world, and that isn't accurate.

Just as in the Antarctic region, another example of the missing "global" warming is the U.S., which has experienced a very slight cooling trend since June 2011.

For both the Antarctic and the U.S., those stubborn facts keep getting in the way of the scary climate narrative.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

More Proof That CO2 Climate "Control Knob" Is Bogus

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) published their August 2023 global lower troposphere (LT) dataset, and it validates that global temperatures have increased over recent months. However, the world remains in a very slight cooling trend since the start of 2015—over 8.5 years.

(click on to enlarge)

By combining the RSS data with NOAA's CO2 data, it's possible to calculate whether the past three years of rising atmospheric CO2 are causing LT temperatures to increase.

As this chart confirms, the monthly moving three-year CO2 increases have zero correlation (R2 = 0.00007) with monthly temperatures.

It also affirms that the widely claimed "control knob" is nothing more than political science fiction.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plotting.

 

Whether It's A "Climate Crisis" Or A "Climate Boiling" Claim, Science Facts Refute The Hyperbole

There is scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels from fossil fuel combustion emissions will raise global temperatures but is there any scientific evidence that CO2 is causing a runaway, global warming tipping point that would result in an existential threat, a climate crisis, a climate emergency, a climate breakdown, climate boiling, or a collapse of civilization as a whole?

In order for the claimed tipping point of runaway warming from CO2 emissions to become reality, there are two characteristics that would be necessary:

A. There would need to be a significant correlation between increases in atmospheric CO2 and ensuing rapid acceleration of warming increases;

B. There would need to be a significant correlation between increases in atmospheric CO2 and consistent temperature increases of serious magnitude.

Both of these temperature characteristics would represent positive feedbacks of an unstable climate in action.

To determine if these positive feedbacks of accelerating warming and large magnitude temperature changes exist for our modern climate, NOAA temperature and CO2 data from the last 25 years can be used to establish the correlations for different time spans (moving 12-month, moving 60-month, moving 120-month and moving 180-month).

Along with the best fit linear regression lines, the relationship R²s are shown on the following 8 charts. The left column contains scatter plot charts revealing the relationship between warming acceleration and CO2 increases; and the right column has scatter plot charts that show the relationship between the magnitude of temperature changes and CO2 increases.

Over the four different time spans plotted for the entire 25 years since July 1998, the correlations for warming acceleration and large magnitude temperature changes are essentially very weak to non-existent, which indicates that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has little impact on the climate.

Conclusion: The world and civilization are not a risk from the burning of fossil fuels that are claimed to be causing a global warming tipping point, or an existential threat, or a climate crisis, or a climate emergency. Such assertions are not supported by the real scientific data.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plotting. Source of NOAA monthly global temperature anomalies. FTP link to download monthly CO2 levels.

Global Warming Surges: From 1850 To The Current Climate

A very quick overview of the global temperature evolution.

According to climate science researchers, there have been several surges in global temperatures to higher levels since 1850.

By plotting the 1850 to July 2023 monthly NOAA global anomalies, visually it becomes clear when the temperature surges upward took place.

(click on to enlarge)

There do exist different numeric and statistical manners in which to identify temperature shifts, but the temperature level shifts on this chart were identified simply by the self-evident grouping of the majority of anomalies for a given time period. (See anomalies grouped within black dashed lines.)

A summary of the five temperature periods from the chart:

Period1: From January 1850 through April 1937, this was an extended time span for both cooling and warming bursts but overall this 87+ year period experienced a small cooling trend of -0.01°C/decade. Notice that over the period's last 20 years, the global anomalies were rising.

Period2: Global temperatures were shifted up to a new base level from May 1937 through October 1976 (39.5 years). Despite the prominent shift up at the beginning of the period, there was a small cooling trend of -0.02°C/decade for the entire period.

Period3: From November 1976 through December 1996 (20.2 years), the first extended modern warming trend was established. There were two brief cooling spans during this period but overall the warming trend was +0.10°C/decade.

Period4: From January 1997 through August 2014 (17.7 years), the warming trend increased to +0.17°C/decade level, again with two cooling spans intermixed during the 17+ years.

Period5: From September 2014 through the end of July 2023 (8.9 years), the warming trend has been significantly reduced - almost being flat - when compared to the two prior warming periods.

While there are those who suggest that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are to blame for the significant shifts in global temperatures over the five different periods, the empirical science does not support the hypothesis that a trace atmospheric gas can cause abrupt changes.

A more likely explanation for the shifts is the natural oscillations and weather variations that are part and parcel of the world's climate.

For example, the well-known climate warming oscillation called 'El Niño' has taken place during all the periods at an average frequency of every five years. Climate researchers have noticed that climate temperature step-upward shifts seem to follow significant El Niño episodes.

Finally, it is possible to reduce the five periods to two very long-term periods: one cooling/flat and one warming. This can be accomplished if one strictly uses the change of the slope of the linear trend from negative to positive at a specific point over the entire length of time since 1850.

For the first long-term period - from1850 to December 1940 - there was a very slight negative slope (i.e., cooling). That amounts to 90.9 years with a trend that was practically flat, thus indicating that there had not been any significant warming over the 90+ years since the Little Ice Age (LIA), which is thought to have ended around 1850.

Using NOAA data, the very long-term positive warming trend starts in January 1941 and continues for 82.5 years, until the end of July 2023.

And if NOAA records are accepted as a trustworthy history of world temperatures, it would then be logical to conclude that a robust, significant temperature recovery from the extended LIA cold really did not begin until the early 1940s.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plotting. Source of NOAA monthly global temperature anomalies.

"Climate Emergency" Disinformation: Pushing Visual Fear-Propaganda

It is regrettable that so many politicians today feel compelled to support particular agenda narratives laced with disinformation that is being created by a number of sources, including those of misguided "expert" scholars, scientists, activists, and journalists.

The false narrative has grown so obvious and apparent during the COVID era that large segments of the public are rejecting the blatant propaganda. Many believe that this is because the ongoing disinformation is being used to force the public to comply with authoritarian, anti-democratic laws and regulations that have been developed by the "experts."

And much like the disinformation of the COVID narrative, the ruling elites are using the same propaganda techniques for the issue of climate change (aka global warming, climate emergency, climate crisis, existential threat, etc.).

Chart #1 (click on to enlarge)

As an illustration, the ruling class is currently spreading false information about "global boiling" in an effort to persuade the populace that major reductions in the use of fossil fuels are required in order to "save the world."

The disinformation campaign frequently uses climate science graphs, like this global anomaly chart from NASA/GISS, to incite widespread public angst.

The NASA/GISS graph (Chart #1) created by the experts depicts scary, rapidly rising monthly global temperature anomalies and displays an anomaly range from -1.0 to +1.5°C on the left axis for the past 170+ years.

But who lives in a location where temperatures (actual observed thermometer values) only range 2.5 degrees in the course of a year?

The majority of people on earth typically live in one of the 90 some nations with a low to high temperature range of the thermometer that is greater than 38 degrees every year. For instance, China's climate has an average daily low in January of -10.6°C and an average high in July of 39.8°C, which is roughly a 50-degree range for a country with 1.4 billion people.

Chart #2

Since it is not practical for this article to show a thermometer degree plot for each of those 90 countries, instead chart #2 plots both the global monthly thermometer and global anomaly temperature measurements using a temp range from -2.0 degrees Celsius (28.4F) to 36 degrees Celsius (96.8F).

Chart #2 provides the real-world temperature context that the public is missing when presented with a simple anomaly chart, such as the one produced by NASA/GISS.

In addition, the common anomaly temperature published by NASA/GISS and other climate research agencies do not include the atmospheric CO2 growth that is claimed to be the cause of the "global boiling."

Chart #2 does include the CO2 growth, making it possible for the public to assess the governing elites' claims that the normal person's use of fossil fuels is actually producing a climate emergency, a climate crisis, an existential threat, global boiling, and etc.

It is very likely that the average person viewing figure #2 would not draw the same conclusion as the experts that CO2 warming is about to bring an end to civilization.

In conclusion, a rational discussion about solutions rather than authoritarian decrees could start if politicians and their "experts" gave the public the necessary information about the climate change challenges in the proper context and avoided the easily debunked fear-mongering hyperbole and disinformation.

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Chart#1 source. Excel used for calculations and plot of chart#2. Source of NOAA's global monthly mean temperatures for calculation of thermometer temps & source of NOAA anomalies.

The Current "Climate Emergency" Narrative: NOAA's Actual U.S. Maximum Temperatures Data Completely Debunks

Government officials and the mainstream legacy media continuously claim that the U.S. is experiencing a "climate emergency" because temperatures are rising due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.

But the actual climate data from NOAA tells a different story—an empirical story that CO2 has little if any impact on U.S. temperatures.

(click on to enlarge)

The adjacent table of data shows each state's warmest month ever, based on the actual NOAA's max monthly temperatures.

And note that the vast majority of these state maximum temperatures took place before 1955, while only 15 states have experienced a 'maximum' month record during the 21st century.

While "global" warming has taken place over the last 30 years, it does not yet rival the record-setting warming that occurred earlier in the 20th century across wide swaths of the U.S.

The table also includes a correlation measurement (R²) that measures the strength of the relationship between a state's monthly maximum temperature anomalies and the cumulative atmospheric CO2 increases.

The R² measurements in the last column reveal an almost non-existent relationship between an increase of atmospheric CO2 and a state's maximum temperatures across 283 months (23 years + 7 months) of the 21st century.

If there was even a moderately positive relationship that suggests some causal effect between the two variables (CO2 increases and temperature anomaly increases), the R² measurement would need to be above +0.30 and certainly not negative, as eight states have experienced.

At the bottom of the table, the same information is listed for the entire U.S. Again, one finds that over the last 23+ years, CO2's impact on our nation's maximum temperatures borders on being negligible.

And the last entry in the table is for North America (the geographical land areas of Canada, the United States and Mexico as determined by NOAA) and reveals a strong commonality with all the U.S. states—CO2 is not the strong influence on temperatures as suggested by those supporting a narrative of

In summary, there is not a single U.S. state that has a "climate emergency" or a "climate boiling" condition that is a direct result of CO2 atmospheric increases causing rising temperatures.

At least for the U.S., any warming experienced by states in the 21st century is much more likely associated with multiple well-known and powerful natural climate variations.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations. R2 calculation is based on calculated correlation of maximum temperatures (for each state) and atmospheric CO2 increase for all months of 21st century thru July 2023. Source for U.S. maximum monthly temperatures for each state; NOAA does not report state records for Hawaii - used the NOAA Honolulu's maximum temp records; source for Washington D.C. maximum temperatures; source for North America's monthly average temperature anomalies (no maximum temps available); and source for monthly CO2 atmospheric levels.

Despite July's Jump In Global Temperatures, Globe Is Still Cooling Over Past 8+ Years

(click on image to enlarge)

Per NOAA, there was a +0.05°C increase in the temperature anomaly over the June 2023 reading.

That means there has been an increase of +0.23°C since July 2022.

In comparison, that 12-month increase pales to the 12-month increase of 0.71°C for February, 1995; the +0.54°C increase for December 1939; and the July 1987 +0.33°C jump

Further analysis of NOAA global temperature dataset confirms that the planet remains in a slight cooling trend over the last 104 months (8.7 years) during a period where atmospheric CO2 levels surged by another 21ppm.

The end result is a negative correlation (-0.030) between CO2 and NOAA temperature anomalies from December 1, 2014 through July 2023. In fact, the weak correlation between these two variables stretches back 10 years to June 2013.

This result completely lays waste to the greenhouse gas 'hopium' that CO2 is a "control knob" that policymakers and scientists can twist and turn to manage and stabilize the climate.

If CO2 is not responsible for the recent warming in 2023, then what are the factors involved that increased temperatures in July and likely will continue to do so in the near future?

This article by a well known climate scientists provides a detailed summary of all the climate factors that are driving 2023 temps up. (Beware, the science is complicated, which reflects the complexities involved within the non-linear and chaotic world climate. And light-years more complicated than the simplistic belief that CO2 is some sort of a "control knob" for achieving climate stability.)

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plots. Sources: Global temp anomalies & CO2 levels.

2023 Hawaii Wildfires & Drought: Did CO2 Cause It To Rain Less On The Island of Maui?

In our first article about the recent Maui wildfires, we addressed the issue of whether "global boiling" climate change (aka global warming) due to CO2 growth was the cause of the devastating fires.

Per the NOAA empirical temperature data for Maui, the short answer is that CO2-induced global warming was not the culprit.

Besides the claim that Maui's temperature must have increased due to higher levels of atmospheric CO2, there is also the claim that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is to blame for the recent lack of Maui's rainfall.

Not surprisingly, the factual Kahului, Maui empirical evidence from NOAA scientific research does not support that claim either.

This chart plots Maui's monthly precipitation anomalies (monthly amounts above and below normal) and the twelve-month moving average of global atmospheric CO2 ppm levels. (Click on chart to enlarge.)

Visually, there does not appear to be any relationship between CO2 and rain.

And the statistics confirm that the visual intuitiveness is correct.

There is no cause and effect relationship (a R² that essentially is zero) between CO2 and precipitation anomalies over the extended period from 1954 through July 2023.

In addition, there is the claim that the current Maui drought, due to low precipitation levels, is unique, even historically unprecedented, due to recent "climate change".

For most people, the island of Maui is considered a lush paradise. But instead of that perception, in reality, many areas of Maui actually have the characteristics of a dry climate.

Historically for Kahului, Maui, its average annual rainfall of 16.6 inches is 4 inches less than that of Flagstaff, Arizona, which is considered a semi-arid climate. And the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico, in comparison, has an annual precipitation amount some 43 inches greater than Kahului, Maui. (The wildfire devastated town of Lahaina is located in an area even drier than Kahului.)

Maui has a yearly wet-season and a dry-season, each lasting approximately 6 months. During the dry-season (May–October), the rainfall falls to well below 1 inch monthly during the warmer spring and summer months.

The above chart includes a six-month average plot (dark blue) that reveals the seasonal precipitation cycle.

Note that the chart plots three distinct time spans of precipitation anomalies (the gaps in months/years are due to the absence of climate records for those months and years).

However, each time span reveals the seasonal cycle as well as extended periods of below-normal rainfall.

This next chart specifically compares the precipitation anomalies for Kahului from the period of January 1905 through July 1909 versus the period of January 2019 through July 2023.

(click on to enlarge)

Both of these time spans are considered drought periods with below-normal rainfall.

As shown on the chart, the plots of the six-month and 36-month running averages match very closely for each time span. In addition, the current period ending in July 2023 had an average monthly rainfall of 1.2 inches versus 1.1 inches for the 1905–1909 average.

Conclusions: Per the evidence, atmospheric CO2 levels do not have an impact on Maui's central-western region's precipitation amounts; the historical rainfall record establishes that the western and central parts of Maui are a dry climate prone to droughts due to low annual rainfall amounts; and, the current shortfall of precipitation is neither unique nor unprecedented in the least.

For explanations on the causes of the Maui wildfire disaster, read this article, this article, this article, and this article; and this research paper regarding Hawaii droughts.

Note: Source of precipitation data. Excel used for all calculations and the plotting of charts. NOAA's climate records for Maui Hawaii have multiple gaps in monthly data. The months with no climate data were not utilized in any calculations or plots. Lahaina, Maui does not have a NOAA weather/climate station. Instead NOAA relies on the climate station located at the Kahului Airport. Precipitation & temperature monthly averages are very similar: Lahaina and Kahului. Explanation of climate for Hawaii's multiple islands.

Maui Island Hawaii Wildfires Due To "Global Boiling"? An Example Of The "Climate Emergency"?

The Lahaina city of Maui, Hawaii has been decimated by large wildfires over the past week. The image below (image source) shows the primary area of Maui that has suffered.

While arsonists are suspected to have contributed to fire's devastation, there are certain regional weather conditions that make the Hawaiian Islands a geographic area that is very prone to wildfires.

This article about the recent fires provides a good background on the natural conditions that make Maui very susceptible to fire outbreaks.

Unfortunately, there are those who are claiming that global warming (aka "boiling") and climate change are the cause of the fires. The claims are based on the hypothesis that the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels, due to human combustion of fossil fuels, are the direct cause of all warming, weather events and climate change.

Many go as far as to claim that the world is in a "climate emergency," and wildfires are an example of that.

As with all these loud and assertive anti-science claims about global warming, atmospheric CO2 did not produce an environment of large warming that would produce Maui extreme temperature conditions, thus causing the Maui fires.

This is factually proven using NOAA empirical scientific evidence, which reveals that the Maui Island temperatures have actually been on a declining trend over the past 10+ years. (see below chart).

The correlation of Maui's temperatures and atmospheric CO2 growth is actually negative over those 10 years, which totally falsifies the climate alarmists' hypothesis.

Conclusions: It's another case of 'those stubborn facts.' And by the way, there is no "climate emergency" and "global boiling" is pure propaganda nonsense.

Part #2 of Maui fire "climate change" articles.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for the temperature anomaly plot & calculations. Source of Hawaiian regional temp anomalies & atmospheric CO2 levels.

NOAA's Empirical Refutation of The UN's "Global Boiling" Propaganda

The United Nation's bureaucracy has unfortunately been a leading source of climate change misinformation and propaganda. The most recent example is the wildly false assertion by the UN secretary general, António Guterres, that the world has reached an era of "global boiling".

First, the global temperature currently hovers around 14.14 degrees Celsius, which is essentially 86 degrees below the UN's boiling propaganda statement.

Second, NOAA has just published the July USCRN temperature results that documents that the average temperature for July 2023 was significantly below the 2012 July temperature - below by +0.62°C. (Description of the USCRN gold-standard weather/climate reporting network.)

Not only is the July 2020 temperature below the July 2012 temp, the chart reveals that U.S. warming has actually experienced a declining trend for an extended period.

That very slight cooling trend is now stretching from the beginning of June 2011 through the end of July 2023. That's a total of 146 months (12+ years).

And that 12+ years consists of a correlation between monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and U.S. temperatures of -0.0093.

Yes, a negative correlation, which is forbidden to be spoken of by the climate narrative community.

Why? Because it totally contradicts the alarmist agenda that CO2 causes global warming (and now "global boiling") that the UN and others propagandize.

So, the global temperature is below '"boiling" by 86 degrees and NOAA's U.S. temperature data confirms a long-lasting cooling span - in combo, a complete refutation of the UN claims and all the others that report that anti-science nonsense.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

Note: Source of USCRN temperature data. Excel used to calculate/plot chart data.

Climate Warming Doomsday Scenario: What, Me Worry? Part5

Should anyone worry about "global boiling" - the newest climate-porn phrase being used by the scientific illiterate?

There's good news: The answer is 'no'! In the real-world, there exists no factual evidence supporting the fantastical assertion that our world is boiling, which would obviously lead to a doomsday scenario.

Neither natural warming nor anthropogenic warming is creating an unstable climate that would be represented by accelerating temperature increases of greater and greater magnitude.

As these two charts of satellite climate measurements depict, global temperatures follow a change pattern of increasing/decreasing magnitudes over different time spans, similar to the pattern of accelerating and decelerating temperatures revealed by the chart accompanying the very first article of this series. 

The repeating pattern of temperature change is absolutely NOT a result of ever-increasing human CO2 emissions but instead of natural climate origins.

Visually, it is readily apparent that growing atmospheric CO2 levels are not associated with temperature changes.

To confirm that numerically, the average temperature change (i.e. black curve) has a low correlation with the increasing CO2 levels (i.e. green dots) that results in a barely positive R² of +0.002. For the bottom chart, the R² is +0.008.

Respectively, the monthly linear trend of the average temperature magnitude change for the top chart is flat-lined at a minuscule +0.00006; and for the bottom chart, it is an equally unimpressive, tiny +0.00013.

 

Literally, the long-term magnitude of these temperature changes is climatically insignificant.

What, me worry about "global boiling"? There is no need since the empirical evidence unequivocally debunks this.

Part1, Part2, Part3 & Part4 of 'What, me worry?' series.

Additional historical, global and regional temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plots. Sources: Global satellite temp anomalies & CO2 levels.

Climate Warming Doomsday Scenario: What, Me Worry? Part4

The CAGW hypothesis calls for a rapid acceleration of global warming from human CO2 emissions, which is not taking place, based on the empirical evidence observed in 'Part#1' of the article series.

(click on to enlarge)

The hypothesis also calls for the temperature changes to become of greater magnitude due to positive feedback mechanisms initiated by the higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

However, that is not taking place either.

As this scatter plot reveals, over the last 30 years there is zero relationship - R² equals +0.003 - between atmospheric CO2 levels and subsequent 12-month temperature anomaly changes.

Note that the regression is negative instead of the predicted positive feedback result, which could be interpreted as CO2 increases causing smaller-magnitude temperature changes

Which leads us to the following: If the magnitude of global temperature increases is not associated with the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels from fossil fuel combustion, then claiming these emissions are causing a runaway climate warming, doomsday scenario, tipping-point is truly without serious scientific merit.

What, me worry?: Part1, Part2, & Part3. Additional historical, global and regional temperature charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plots. Sources: Global temp anomalies & CO2 levels.

Central England Temperatures: Update of Old 2009 Temp & CO2 Chart

One of C3's old Central England Temperature (CET) charts shows up now and then on Twitter ('X') despite being quite dated. The most recent example was this tweet by @EcoSenseNow using a chart from an article we posted way back on January 13, 2010.

The fact that this chart is still being used, we thought it was time to update the chart with the new data since 2009. And we included with the updated chart the yellow box of text that was often added to 'C3' charts from 2009-2012. (The original chart included a yellow box of text.)

Additional historical, global and regional charts.

Climate Warming Doomsday Scenario: What, Me Worry? Part3

Should the average person be worried about a global warming doomsday because of human CO2 emissions?

(click on to enlarge)

NOAA global temperature empirical evidence confirms that the hypothetical, strong correlation between CO2 atmospheric levels and temperatures is without merit over the recent past.

Rapidly accelerating towards a climate 'doomsday' from CO2 emissions is a scientific falsehood.

And that means the average person can completely ignore the climate hysteria propaganda.

What, me worry?: Part1 & Part2

Additional global and regional temp charts.

Notes: Excel used for all calculations and plots. Sources: Global temp anomalies & CO2 levels.

Climate Warming Doomsday Scenario: What, Me Worry? Part2

Remember when "journalists" claimed the U.S. was burning up and we needed to do something about it immediately?

USCRN, the recently implemented, gold-standard climate reporting and measurement system, now has updated results through June 2023. And it shows that June 2023 temp is below that of June 2005 after 18.5 years of humans releasing CO2 emissions.

Below is a map of U.S. that indicates the hottest temperature records for each state. 39 of the states hit their highest temp before 1960.

Source: https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1679544479458689024

The above information is an indication that the impact of huge human CO2 emissions has little regional climatic impact, which lends credence to other empirical evidence that the global impact is significantly less than claimed by climate alarmist advocates.

Thus, are Americans facing an imminent warming doomsday catastrophe from greenhouse gases? "What, me worry?" translates to 'NO', the evidence-based answer.

Additional regional and global temperature charts. Previous 'Those Stubborn Facts' postings.

Climate Global Warming Doomsday Scenario: What, Me Worry? Part1

A global warming doomsday scenario requires a state of continuous, rapid acceleration of warming that has exponential traits. If that is not taking place, then there is no worry about an existing doomsday crisis/emergency.

Climate reality: There is no continuous, rapid acceleration. The satellite empirical evidence reveals climate trends switch back and forth from acceleration to deceleration over a wide range of periods, despite the large increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And as the time spans get longer in length, the warming temperature resolves to a small linear trend of warming that is, let's say, light-years distant from being an existential climate threat or a doomsday scenario.

And the correlation between warming trends and increasing levels of CO2? Insignificant. The top chart has a r² of 0.0008; the bottom r² is at 0.025.

 

Additional global and regional charts.

Notes: Excel used for all plots & calculations. R-squareds between trends and CO2 levels increases calculated using the average (black curve) of the rolling trends for each chart. Calculations based on entire satellite dataset that starts with December 1978. CO2 plot represents monthly cumulative increase in the atmosphere levels since December 1978. Source of monthly UAH satellite temps; source of monthly CO2 (ppm) levels. Since August 1, 2014 thru June 2023, the satellites confirm a zero warming trend - 8.9 years at zero.

 

Evidence of CO2 Climate Change or Natural Climate Change?

Do monthly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 from human emission sources cause ocean temperatures to consistently warm each month? That's what NOAA, politicians, the establishments' legacy MSM, and Hollywood celebrities want everyone to believe.

(click on to enlarge)

But actual empirical evidence from NOAA's own climate reporting system, as shown here, debunks that erroneous belief.

Literally, the warming trend of ocean waters has been ZERO since March 2014. Actually, it's a total of 111 months with a very tiny cooling trend.

As depicted by the dark blue, moving 24-month average, visually it is clear from the empirical evidence that sea waters exhibit significant changes in temperatures, both up and down.

Human CO2 emissions do NOT cause significant up/down variations of monthly sea temps.

Specifically, look at the last three columns (March, April & May 2023 respectively) of the chart. CO2 emissions did not all of a sudden cause those significant increases in temperature anomalies.

Instead, natural regional/global climate oscillations and patterns are the cause, as they can produce significant up/down temp changes on a monthly basis that affect both oceans and global land areas.

Climate oscillations, such as the periodical ENSO pattern, which can generate large increases/decreases in temperatures.

And in fact, climate and weather researchers have been predicting the last 12 months that an important change in the ENSO status would take place, changing from the La Niña to the El Niño phase. And over the last three months, that change has finally occurred.

This latest El Niño event is expected to significantly impact global warming average temperatures, per the experts.

But the natural ENSO oscillation is not the only natural climate variation that can produce a strong impact on both temperatures and other climate observations. This list identifies some 45+ oscillations/cycles/patterns that influence regional and global temperatures.

Additional global temperature charts.

Note: Excel used for plots/calculations of NOAA ocean temperature data through May 2023.

The Empirical Evidence Is Overwhelming: Predicted Warming of Antarctica Is Baseless

Source: https://notrickszone.com/2022/11/03/dramatic-cooling-and-recent-ice-shelf-advance-in-the-antarctic-peninsula/

The adjacent article, regarding recent Antarctica Peninsula peer-reviewed studies, supports what NOAA's actual Antarctica empirical evidence indicates:

Antarctica has not been warming over the last 35 years, which is totally contrary to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Stated another way, since the late 1980s, the entire continent has experienced a very slight cooling trend.

It's another case of Those Stubborn Facts, that debunk all the climate models, which the climate "scientists" are unable to refute.

Global Warming Causes Headaches? But NOAA Evidence Indicates Zero Warming For 10+ Years

Another study with a bogus claim about CO2-caused global warming is debunked, by NOAA empirical evidence.

On average, for the multiple regions of the world that NOAA tracks and reports temperature changes for, there has been no global warming for 10.5 years (see second image - i.e. table).

Excluding the extended 35 years of no global warming in Antarctica, the average for the rest of the regional areas drops to 9.1 years.

From each region's pause 'Start Date, the table includes the correlation and r-squared between the region's temperature anomalies and NOAA's CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels.

(click on to enlarge)

The correlation derived r-squared(s) between CO2 and temperature anomalies is essentially ZILCH, across the board.

Unfortunately, like most "scientists" who attempt to blame global warming for something they identified as a problem, it seems they never do the requisite research to confirm that global warming is actually taking place.

Rest assured, your headaches are not from global warming.

Notes: Source of temperature anomalies & CO2 ppm data. Excel used for calculations and plotting.

Per NOAA's Climate Science: Antarctic's Cooling Trend Stretches From April 1988 Through April 2023

One of the very important climate temperature trends that NOAA omits from their never-ending, alarmist climate change PR is the fact that the Antarctic's warming has been at a standstill (numerically, a slight cooling trend) since early 1988.

(click on to enlarge)

That standstill spans 35+ years, despite the large growth of atmospheric CO2 levels during that period. And during that span, the correlation between Antarctic's temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels is actually negative (-0.00152), resulting in a r^2 of a ludicrously low 0.000002.

This outcome is entirely contrary to the "global" warming hypothesis that increasing CO2 will cause temperatures to rise, especially at the polar regions.

Because of their cultish belief in the hypothesis narrative, no "consensus" government-funded scientists predicted that the Antarctic would literally not have warmed during an extended period of high human CO2 emissions.

Additional regional and global charts. Additional failed predictions.

Notes: Antarctic temperature anomalies source; atmosphere CO2 levels source. Excel used to calculate trends, correlation, r^2 and to plot data.

IPCC AR6 Climate Report Called Out By Scientists Re: Serious Misinformation & Disinformation

The UN's IPCC latest climate change report (AR6) has been severely tarnished by activism propaganda that subverts the actual empirical climate science reality.

A group of scientists have produced a report that identifies and analyzes the combination of climate change misinformation and disinformation that exists in the 2023 AR6 report.

The press release for the analysis of the IPCC report can be found here; the full report here.

Both U.S. Maximum & Average Temperatures On Slight Cooling Trend Since 2011

Is the world 'HOT' and 'BURNING UP' from human CO2 emissions that "cause" global warming?

Well, the U.S. climate didn't get the memo. Average and maximum surface temperature trends recorded by NOAA's USCRN, the world's state-of-the-art climate measurement system, reveal that both have bucked the global warming trend since the spring of 2011.

And both the max and avg April 2023 temperature anomalies are lower than what USCRN recorded in April 2005. (The USCRN system came online in January 2005.)

Does anyone (other than the MSM news) still believe the politicians and climate scientists shouting that climate doomsday is just around the corner?

For the record, NOAA reports that the globe has been on a cooling trend ('pause', if you prefer) since 2015.

(click on to enlarge)

The Real Climate Science Crisis: The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) Hypothesis Is Without Scientific Evidence

For a hypothesis to reach the status of being a legit theory, it requires withstanding the onslaught of observed empirical evidence. The CAGW hypothesis is no such animal.

Known by its more contemporary aliases, such as ''climate crisis," "climate emergency," "climate collapse," or "existential threat," the CAGW has zero empirical evidence to support it.

Unlike the related hypothesis regarding greenhouse gases (GHG) and global warming, at least the GHG hypothesis has warming global temperature data that somewhat coincides with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, putting aside the growing possibility that the purported cause-and-effect direction is probably the reverse.

In order to reach a CAGW climate disaster, global warming temperatures must change rapidly in an accelerating manner that will initiate a 'tipping point' for the climate.

The rapid acceleration would present its occurrence in a continuous increasing of the slope, i.e., trend, of temperatures, such as monthly temperatures. Each subsequent month would represent a greater temperature magnitude increase than the month before, hypothetically.

(click on to enlarge)

But those tipping point precursors are not occurring in the real-world climate.

For example, it is agreed by all climate scientists that oceans play a very major role in the world's climate and its global temperatures due to their being both the world's largest carbon sink and its largest heat content storage.

However, despite these characteristics, in totality, the global oceans HAVE NOT warmed since the year 2014. And certainly, there is no empirical evidence that oceans exhibit constant temperature increases of magnitude.

Quite the contrary, combined oceans exhibit a regular pattern of temperature decreases and increases, as the adjacent plot of NOAA's monthly ocean data indicates.

Specifically, this is a plot (dark blue) of moving 5-year temperature changes ending each month of the 60-year period from March 1963 through March 2023.

[Explanation: the first data point is the temperature change for the 60 months ending on March 30, 1963; and the chart's last temperature change data point is for the five 5 years (i.e. 60 months) ending on March 2023.]

The chart also includes a plot (green) of the moving 60-month CO2 level changes over the same sixty year period, plus a linear trend for both CO2 changes and ocean temperature changes.

The trend of the 60-month CO2 changes significantly exceeds the slight positive trend of ocean temperature changes by a factor of 117x. This huge differential undercuts the belief that global warming is primarily the result of GHGs. Which is confirmed by the paltry R^2 of +0.06 - an almost non-existent relationship between 5-year atmospheric CO2 changes and 5-year changes in ocean temperature.

Not only are the large increases in CO2 levels not causing a concerning uptick of temperature change magnitude, it also has not lead to any type of acceleration, per the linear trend since 1963.

Specifically, with a trend of a tiny +0.0001°C, that would project out 20 years to be an increase of 5-year temperature changes to an insignificant amount of +0.024 - definitely not an existential threat of 'runaway warming' or a CAGW 'climate crisis' as portrayed by bureaucrats, politicians and Hollywood celebrities.

So, if 5 years of increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere barely influence 5-year changes in temperature over a 60-year span, either in magnitude or acceleration rate, then it is highly unlikely that this trace gas would cause a catastrophic climate disaster or an extinction event.

Thus, it is fair to state that for all those scientists pushing a narrative of an imminent climate change catastrophe from CO2 without the requisite empirical evidence, this has become the real climate science crisis facing society.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Notes: Temperature and CO2 data sources.Excel used to calculate 60-mth (5-yr) temperature and CO2 changes; used to calculate the respective trends; used to calculate correlation and r-squared; used to plot the chart.

Climate "Science": NOAA's Butchery of The Historical Scientific Temperature Record Continues

At the beginning of 2023, NOAA once again changed historical measurements in their surface temperature dataset.

This is a common action that NOAA applies way too frequently to historical information, which one could surmise, based on the following evidence, does not comport with the scientific goal of objectivity and truth.

Climatologist and scientist Ole Humlum is one of the few experts who has been tracking the temperature changes made by NOAA since 2008. In his monthly update, Dr. Humlum includes the below charts that aid in the visualization of NOAA's "scientific" adjustments.

This chart tracks the changes made to two calendar months, specifically January 1915 and January 2000.

click on to enlarge

For the month of January 2000 (red lines), modifications have now reached 70+ occurrences (each vertical line represents a change). Some changes are large, but most are small.

For the month of January 1915 (the blue lines), its temperature has been modified by NOAA 65+ times through April 2023

At the starting point of Dr. Humlum's tracking efforts, May 2008, the difference between these two Januarys was +0.39°C. That difference had reached +0.51 °C by April 2023.

Now, if these two Januarys were the only months modified by NOAA, it would be no big deal.

BUT, as Holum's second chart indicates, NOAA applies changes to all months going back to 1880. And the vast majority of changes since 1939 have been temperature increases, while those prior to 1940 were decreases.

Overall, NOAA has fabricated an increased warming rate since 1939 and has cut the warming rate in half from 1880 through 1939.

All accomplished via continuous adjustments since May 2008, which conveniently produce greater global warming for the modern era.

In the case of the most recent changes to the historical measurements made in January 2023, 1,575 of 1,716 past monthly temperatures reported in December 2022 were "updated"—91.8% overall.

For the decade of the 1880s, 114 months out of 120 were changed—that's 95%. The average monthly change for that decade was a cooling of -0.04°C. Those changes included June 1883 being cooled by a whopping -0.17°C.

As stated earlier, these changes to the historical temperatures do not appear to comport with unbiased objectivity or scientific truth. Instead, they seem very biased, with a non-randomness designed to support a political narrative—aka, "the climate crisis".

Note: Ole Humlum's charts include the acronym 'NCDC' - (NOAA's National Climate Data Center)

New Climate Research Authenticates Lack of The Infamous Greenhouse Tropical Hotspot

Why "Infamous"? Because no one has ever located this climate unicorn.

The hotspot is an essential claim of climate change doomsday beliefs - the belief that it exists and persists in the mid-troposphere. Combine that with the IPCC's experts reliance on climate models' pseudo-science which predict that increases of atmospheric trace greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, etc.) are the cause of the hotspot.

Many doomsday climate scientists believe that an atmospheric hotspot exists, and for some, it is indicative of an Earth rapidly warming to become a Venus-like oven, thus leading to our planet's oceans boiling.

Hence, for the gullible politicians and journalists, a fake climate crisis posing as an existential threat.

But new peer-reviewed research from a NOAA climate scientist team confirms what doomsday skeptics have been reporting for years: that the climate model's tropical hotspot is non-existent. Recent articles about this new NOAA temperature research can be found here, here and here.

(click on to enlarge)

This NOAA team of scientists corroborate the findings of the UAH satellite dataset record for the mid-troposphere over the tropics. (Also corroborating the UAH lower troposphere temperature records.)

To put an empirical point on it, the satellite observations show that the tropical mid-troposphere has been cooling since August 2012 (see chart) even with the El Niño temperature spikes of 2015-16 and 2018-19.

Stated another way, that is over 10 years with no significant warming and no permanent hotspot.

Confirmation of the satellite data can be found at this NOAA site of surface tropical temperatures for the Hawaiian region, which has also been cooling, since October 2012.

Conclusion: The 'expert' computer climate change models have dangerously overstated how much warming would be the result of trace greenhouse gases. These egregious climate warming predictions cascade into even more dangerous errors about the ultimate impacts of climate change.

And let it be known that computer models for the climate are not alone when it comes to bad predictions: some of the worst predictions are realized almost on a daily basis from computer models used for COVID deaths, short-term weather forecasting, economic forecasting, or stock market performance.

This simple truth is why policymakers should never rely on computer model outputs. Computer models are great for research but not for correctly predicting the future.

Additional prior climate model charts and links to past posts on failed predictions.

Note: Source for UAH mid-troposphere data. Excel used to plot data points and calculate trend.

Survey: Teenage Climate Doomsday Influencer's Impact On Young Adults Appears To Be Waning, Bigly

The U.N. and big MSM made Greta Thurnberg out to be a scholar on climate change doomsday scenarios. But her oversized influence on young adults must be cratering in regards to the climate change narrative. Article

 

NOAA Confirms U.S. Precipitation Amounts Are Little Changed Since 1895 Despite Large CO2 Emissions

(click on to enlarge)

If CO2 emissions are the cause of large changes in precipitation amounts, that climate result is not evident in the amount of precipitation recorded going back to 1895.

The adjacent chart is a plot of NOAA climate data for the U.S.

Average monthly precipitation from January 1895 through March 2023 was 2.51 inches. In contrast, the average from January 1950 through March 2023 was 2.54".

Reflecting on the data, the United States is not suffering from a deluge or a drought of precipitation on a constant basis, which both are claimed as a current existential threat by persons ignorant of the scientific and empirical evidence.

With that said, there are times when very dry and very wet periods occur within specific regions of the U.S. but both are results of a natural climate variability, not CO2 emissions.

Note: Source of precipitation data. Excel used to create plots of precipitation levels; Excel used to produce the 1.5 standard deviation range seen on chart. Approximately 7% of precipitation data points are outside the range at top and bottom. Red curve is rolling 55-year (660 month) average since 1895 (1950 was beginning of large industrial/consumer CO2 emissions era).

Lack of U.S. Climate Warming Now Extends Beyond 9 Years

Contradicting the narrative: Below is a chart that the legacy mainstream media will not be reporting on and the crony "green" politicians will simply ignore.

Per NOAA, U.S. temperatures have been on a slight cooling trend since February 2014.

Despite atmospheric CO2 levels increasing 5.2% (≈+22.0 ppm) during that time, there has been no overall U.S. warming over the last 9 years and 2 months.

The global doomsday existential threat that many politicians and reporters claim to be taking place is somehow conveniently avoiding the nation with the world's best climate reporting system. Go figure.

Source of USCRN temperature data and CO2. Excel used to calculate and plot trends.

NOAA: U.S. Historical Droughts 1895-2022

Contrary to current climate crisis narrative, the U.S. suffered worse droughts in the past.

1934 U.S. drought conditions: In May 1934 peaked at 44% of land under severe drought conditions.

2022 U.S. drought conditions: In July 2022 peaked at 21% of land under severe drought conditions.

NOAA source for drought charts.

Additional severe weather charts.

Debunking Fake News: Climate Change to Submerge Hawaii's Beaches?

Legacy media outlets have driven public confidence in major news sources to all-time lows, for very obvious reasons.

Fake news and disinformation narratives.

One of the better examples of the disinformation 'news' narrative campaign masquerading as objective reporting is the 24/7/365 climate change fear-mongering that is based more on hyperbole and alarmism than empirical evidence.

Most major news sources have taken it as their duty to 'report' that islands and coastal areas will soon be submerged due to climate change from human CO2 emissions. (CNN is just one example.)

In this article, CNN fails to mention that Honolulu's current Waikiki Beach is essentially man-made, with erosion problems dating back to the 1800s. The building of homes and hotels too close to the natural shoreline, and the addition of a multitude of piers, seawalls and groins, have badly disrupted the natural ebb and flow of sand along the entire length of the beach.

The disruption was so bad that Honolulu was forced to import sand from California over many years.

In addition, CNN chose not to share with its readers that NOAA has measured the long-term sea level rise in Honolulu at a tiny 1.55mm/year, which coverts to about 6 inches per century.

Interestingly, there was a greater Honolulu rate of sea level rise for the pre-modern period of 1905-1949 (540 months) of 8.6 inches/century, versus the rate of 7.5 inches/century for the 540-month period ending in 2021.

Per the science, the rate of sea level rise in Honolulu - be it 5, 6, 7, 8 inches/century - will not be placing its famed beaches forever "underwater" anytime soon.

And as the scientific evidence almost always confirms, the MSM press has a well deserved reputation of reporting a biased narrative and not necessarily the facts about climate change impacts required to make informed policy decisions.

Unfortunately, the same is true for the vast majority of important policy issues that we face.

Past sea level charts.

Note: Source of sea level data. Excel used to plot charts and calculate trends.