C3

Fundamental Lies of The UN's IPCC: "Food Production Harmed By CO2 & Warmer Temperatures"

Like the UN, the IPCC is a political organization that seemingly has a primary objective of misleading the public and policymakers about climate science. Another example of such behavior is.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

The empirical evidence and peer reviewed research is indisputable  - essential food production has dramatically improved while CO2 levels and global temperatures increased.

Those are the stubborn facts that the adjacent chart reveals as unequivocal.

Yet, because of the political-driven agenda the IPCC pursues, their latest report states that the world's food production would be more "secure" if CO2 emissions were reduced. Hmm...the exact opposite of known scientific fact.

       "There, it can be seen that enriching the air with CO2 almost always leads to significant increases in the photosynthetic rates and biomass production of all of the world's major food crops. And as for the highly-unlikely increase in global temperature that the world's climate alarmists predict to result from projected increases in the air's CO2 content, there are also many studies that reveal the positive consequences of warming for agriculture in Earth's cooler high-latitude regions, such as the recent study of Meng et al. (2014) dealing with maize production in the northern reaches of China. And there is also the significant body of work that reveals that as the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rises, the various temperatures at which different plants photosynthesize most proficiently rise right along with it..."

"Yet the primary efforts of both of these entities [Ed. the UN's IPCC and the UNFCCC] have been, and continue to be, directed against that which is most needed to produce the required amount food, as they both argue for reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which comprise much of the aerial "food" that sustains all of our food crops."

Truth be told, the headline of this post is not an IPCC quote but obviously it represents what the IPCC is attempting to convince the public of, and unfortunately, the real-world, objective science does not support it in the least.

Summary: The IPCC's fundamental lies continue to establish the blatant anti-science which permeates the entire UN's climate "research" reporting - it's propaganda spin all the way down.

Additional 'C3' charts that challenge the IPCC's anti-science. Note: NOAA CO2 levels on above chart have been super-imposed on the original found here.

International Team of Scientists Discredit "Scary" Sea Level Rise Myth: Possibly 2.1 Inch Increase By Year 2050

Latest peer reviewed research determines that recent sea level rise along the coasts of northern Europe and the English Channel are within historical bounds experienced during the 19th and earlier 20th century periods.

Per the scientists from Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the actual empirical evidence points to a potential sea level rise by 2050 AD of 2.1 inches for the North Sea coast and 1.6 inches for the English Channel.

"In light of the findings of the international team of scientists participating in this significant study, it would appear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the rate of sea level rise throughout both the North Sea and the rest of the Global Ocean over the entire CO2-emitting course of the Industrial Revolution."

In summary, this study does not support the irrational, unsubstantiated current claims and predictions of sea level increases made by prominent GWN's who rely on projections from the discredited climate models. The recent and past sea level increase facts reveal the totally absurd and irresponsible, anti-science speculations of 36 to 120 inch rise for coastal waters.

Previous sea level articles and charts.

Climate Models: Documentation From NOAA Confirms Quackery of Computer Simulations

What happens when you compare the empirical evidence of climate reality versus the predictions of government-funded climate models?.....how do you spell Q-U-A-C-K....

(click on chart to enlarge)

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the global warming prediction quackery that constantly flows from the taxpayer-funded, government sanctioned, computer climate models.

The adjacent chart, produced by a non-rocket scientist, is yet more proof of the quack climate model "science" that policymakers have been forced to rely on. Charitably, policymakers would make better decisions if instead they relied on flipping a coin or a visit to their local astrologer with a crystal ball.

The chart specifically compares state-of-the-art climate model temperature output for the U.S. corn belt region versus NOAA's climate network system (USHCN).

Simply put, climate models don't do reality, since forever.

Amazingly, over the shorter term, the global warming predictions for the U.S. breadbasket have been even worse, in fact, astoundingly atrocious - instead of warming, growing areas have cooled considerably.

Solution: Until climate models are verified as being capable of somewhat accurate forecasts (predictions, scenarios, etc.), policymakers and taxpayers should completely ignore any climate simulation output that is a result of today's computer models. This should also apply to mainstream journalists, but, let's be honest here, they're too incredibly lazy and gullible to distinguish between empirical evidence and agenda-driven prediction fantasies, no?

Those Stubborn Facts: Chinese Scientists Confirm That Medieval Period Warmer, That Solar Impact Is Huge

The distinctive global warmings during the modern era and the Medieval Period share similar causes - our solar system's sun, per China's climate scholars...

(click on image to enlarge)

Researchers around the globe continue to build on the mountain of scientific evidence that the Medieval Period had warmer temperatures than the modern era.

And the evidence for a powerful solar influence on temperatures and climate change is substantial and growing.

====> "Here we present [Editor: Chinese scientists] decadally-resolved, alkenone-based, temperature records from two lakes on the northern Tibetan Plateau. Characterized by marked temperature variability, our records provide evidence that temperatures during the MWP were slightly higher than the modern period in this region. Further, our temperature reconstructions, within age uncertainty, can be well correlated with solar irradiance changes, suggesting a possible link between solar forcing and natural climate variability, at least on the northern Tibetan Plateau."

Additional climate history articles and charts.

Climate FactCheck: Exactly How Much Did The Democrats' 'Cash-for-Clunkers' Reduce Global Warming?

Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....

(click on image to enlarge)

The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.

This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.

Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.

First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.

Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.

That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?

The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero. 

Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)

Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).

What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?

Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.

Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?

Previous articles on quackery from politicians: light bulbs and plastic bags.

A Reminder From NOAA: It's Now 17+ Years And Global Warming Trend Still AWOL In U.S.

Ahhh.....those stubborn facts. The "consensus" climate science "experts" have been constantly bedeviled by the empirical climate reality, such as this...

(click on chart to enlarge)

NOAA's empirical evidence does not lie, nor deny. Over the last 205 months (Feb. 1, 1997 thru Feb. 28, 2014), the continental U.S. has cooled at a per century rate of -0.96°C.

This has taken place despite the assurance of almost every taxpayer-funded climate scientist that the exact opposite would happen.

They told us that their powerful and sophisticated computer climate models could accurately predict what future climate conditions we would experience.

Except they were spectacularly wrong from day one; and yet, they kept spending multi-billions of taxpayer funds by throwing it down this failed climate research rabbit hole.

Why were the "experts" and the computer simulations so, so wrong?

From a recent essay about this gigantic and embarrassing failure by government scientists, we learn:

"Realities about climate models are much more prosaic. They don’t and can’t work because data, knowledge of atmospheric, oceanographic, and extraterrestrial mechanisms, and computer capacity are all totally inadequate. Computer climate models are a waste of time and money...Inadequacies are confirmed by the complete failure of all forecasts, predictions, projections, prognostications, or whatever they call them."

Addtional regional temperature charts and climate model charts.

Download dataset used in Excel to create chart. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.

Climate FactCheck: Plastic Bags & More Quack, Global Warming Anti-Science From Democrats

(click on image to enlarge)

Previously, we analyzed the claim by Democrats that global warming was being caused by American light bulbs.

As shown here, that claim is found to be without any empirical merit - essentially, pure anti-science rhetoric on the part of Democrats.

Next we take a look at the Democrats' claim that plastic bags are a major cause of global warming.

For many Democrats, the banning of plastic bags in their local communities has become a personal  cause célèbre that represents a badge of honor in the fight against global warming.

But does the plastic bag "cause" have any scientific merit or is just more anti-science from quacks?

To the math. In the U.S. some 100 billion plastic bags are used each year. Yikes!

On average, it's been estimated that a plastic bag weighs 32.5 grams (for the record, a typical grocery store plastic bag weighs only 5 grams). And its been estimated that a plastic bag at the average weight represents about 200 grams of CO2 (when accounting for the plastic bag's production and eventual incineration).

As a result, via simple multiplication, those 100 billion plastic bags equal 20 trillion grams of CO2, which converts to 20 million metric tonnes of CO2.

Sooo.....what's the plastic bag impact on global warming from 20 million tonnes/year of CO2 over the next 20 years?

Well, it's squat, too. There is no warming impact, which makes the Democrats' claim more anti-science propaganda of the quackery sort.

Banning plastic bags due to their climate change impact is sheer nonsense, but banning them for other environmental reasons is a whole 'nuther issue.

The global warming impact calculation can be accomplished with the 'C3' simple estimator found here and just enter the CO2 tonnes amount desired. (Note: The image above is only a replica of the real tool.)

For comparison purposes, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a global warming nothing-burger.

Read about the 'C3' simple estimators.

Climate FactCheck: The Quack Anti-Science of Democrats - Dimmer Than A 40-Watt Incandescent Bulb

(click on image to enlarge)

These smiling Democrat senators recently held a "climate change" sleepover at the Capitol that was a rather blatant attempt to please their billionaire-crony donors.

Instead of accomplishing anything meaningful, the low-watt Democrats justifiably received a heavy round of mockery from all sorts of Americans.

The Democrats' climate science has now been in quack mode for an extended period.

An example of the economic harm imposed by this type of anti-science quackery was a legislative victory for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate during 2007 when the "Energy Independence and Security Act" was passed. This 'Act' effectively banned the future purchase of incandescent light bulbs by Americans.

Since the beginning of 2014, those desired, cheap light bulbs have been difficult to find. And it's completely due to the quack anti-science that Democrats believe.

This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.

Thus, they have forced every American to buy more expensive lighting replacements instead of the old, reliably pleasing and inexpensive incandescent technology.

Democrats did this in the name of "science." But as was the case with their recent anti-science climate-pajama party, factual science was pretty much AWOL in the war on light bulbs. 

So, what does the indisputable, factual science tell us about the global warming impact of keeping incandescent light bulbs out of the hands of Americans?

Simply put: It is squat - there is zero impact by doing so.

The science is actually pretty straightforward. First, Americans buy some 2 billion bulbs per year. Per the EPA, if each incandescent bulb purchased were replaced instead with an energy efficient CFL bulb purchase, it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.0382 metric tonnes. So, two billion bulbs per year times 0.0382 tonnes totals to a yearly CO2 reduction of 76,400,000 tonnes.

Sounds impressive, no?

Well, in the scheme of things that are climate significant, it's not. As the real science dictates, by the end of the next 20 years the yearly CO2 reduction of 76 million plus tonnes will have zero impact on global temperatures. (And that's to the second decimal place.)

Let's do the math (or you can just use this 'C3' estimator whose replica is displayed below the Democrats' photo-op image): We know from the empirical evidence that since 1850 the Earth has warmed a +0.85 Celsius degree while humans have emitted approximately 1.4 trillion tonnes of CO2. As a result, to warm the Earth +0.01°C about 16.5 billion tonnes of human new CO2 emissions would be required.

How's that figure compare to the tonnes saved over 20 years by replacing 40 billion light bulbs? (BTW, it's highly likely there a lot fewer than 40 billion to be replaced.) All those incandescent light bulb CO2 savings would amount to only one-tenth the required 16+ billion tonnes.

And that then means all the CO2 savings would amount to no measurable global temperature impact. Hmmm...did we say 'squat' yet?

Just to add the appropriate emphasis to what the past 164 years of empirical science tell us, the 'C3' estimator replica above also reveals what would happen to "global warming" if the entire U.S. economy shuts down for one year, eliminating some 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion - again, it's a nothing-significant outcome for the climate.

That's a climate factcheck.

Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor-cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate-impact substance.

Additional 'C3' estimator/calculation tools.

Per NOAA: U.S. Climate Change Not So Much During The Massive CO2 Emission Increase of Modern Era

(click on chart to enlarge)

Per NOAA's published annual mean temperatures, the modern warming trend for the U.S., since the beginning of 1950, amounts to an increase of 1.35°C by century end.

But this modern trend is just +0.36° higher than the trend that existed from 1895 to 1949. For the records, that existing pre-consumer/industrial CO2 trend was already at a significant +0.99°C, by year 2100.

Based on the official climate empirical evidence, as the adjacent chart depicts, this recent measly trend increase (a third of a single degree) of climate change (i.e. U.S. warming) is claimed by IPCC scientists to be a result of the modern, gigantic global emissions approximating over 1.2 trillion tonnes since the end of 1949

Yet, the prior period to the modern era experienced a climate change trend that was equivalent to a 1-degree change. Essentially, a built-in, long-term trend some 3-times larger than the additional modern trend increase.

And this larger, pre-modern, in-the-pipeline warming trend took place when human CO2 emissions were a fraction of the modern era's - literally, one-tenth the amount of emissions (see chart).

Then there is the whole embarrassing issue of the great climate science mystery, which includes the U.S. climate records. During the last 17 years that span from February 1997 through February 2014, the continental U.S. actually cooled at a per century rate of -1.0°C (per NOAA's monthly anomalies).

Now what does all this empirical evidence mean?

Well, obviously, the pre-1950 climate change was significantly greater than that of the modern era. Again, obviously, the modern U.S. climate change has been way over-hyped by politicians and government scientists when put into a historical perspective, as above.

Then there is the indisputable NOAA fact that the last 17 years have witnessed a general cooling for the U.S., which, obviously, is at substantial odds with the "consensus" climate scientists predictions and the IPCC's "expert" computer models.

When combining all this very obvious evidence, one can fairly surmise that either global warming is not very "global" or that human CO2 emissions are not a very powerful influence on the Earth's climate or institutional, orthodoxy climate science has failed, badly - or maybe it's a lot of all three.

Additional regional and modern temperature charts.

Note: NOAA U.S. dataset (converted to Celsius) used for temperature calculations from this site. CO2 emission datasets covering 1895 thru 2012 here and here. Used estimate for 2013 CO2 emissions.

Climate Sensitivity: The Old "Consensus" Fails - Latest Research Provides New Answers

(click on image to go to this 'C3' estimator)

The IPCC's old "consensus' has proclaimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would likely result in global temperatures increasing from 3.5 to 6+ degrees Celsius.

The last 15 years of actual climate records and empirical measurements have shattered that consensus. Publication after publication has written about the "Pause" or the "Hiatus" that's been used to describe AWOL global warming.

"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.

In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.

As this article describes, new scientific studies have recently been published, strongly indicating that both a long-term and short-term sensitivities are significantly lower than the failed assumptions of the IPCC.

The new research, depending on the time-frame chosen, indicates empirically-based climate sensitivity ranging from +1.0°C to +2.9°C.

Using the above 'C3' tool to estimate different global warming outcomes dependent of climate sensitivity chosen, it can be determined that if this century's climate sensitivity is closer to the '+1.5' the new studies suggest, then the global temperature impact would be a very modest +0.52°C - clearly, not the over-the-top +6 or more degree possibilities tossed about by many "consensus" scientists.

Note: To use the 'C3' global temperature estimator, click on the above image. Input your preferred variable data into the yellow boxes and press 'Enter' or 'Tab' key. Additional 'C3' tools.

Satellites Confirm: Despite A Near Trillion Tonne Human CO2 Surge, Global Atmosphere Warming Goes AWOL

An analysis of satellite temperature dataset, through February 2014, identifies only two 5-year periods having significant warming and five periods that exhibit either zero warming or cooling.....the consensus experts' predicted reaction, by the climate, to a surge of human CO2 emissions is not supported by empirical evidence

(click on chart to enlarge)

The adjacent chart clearly depicts the lack of the predicted global warming since the decade of the 1990s.

Utilizing a straight-forward, empirical analysis of the RSS satellite temperature dataset reveals a rather tenuous (non-existent?) relationship between global atmospheric warming and CO2 emissions.

As the chart suggests, a brief global warming spike has morphed into an extended global cooling phase, which the consensus experts have identified as 'the mysterious global-warming hiatus'; plus being forced to trot-out a wild variety of excuses as to why their AGW predictions have failed.

Unfortunately, the GWNs, and their compatriots in the green climate-doomsday-is-near cult, continue to reject the actual scientific empirical evidence, such as the above chart.

More of 'those-stubborn-fact' climate charts.

Download datasets used to calculate the five-year change (starting base month is February 1979) of RSS atmospheric temperatures; cumulative CO2 emission tonnes, from 1979 through 2013. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.