C3

Climate Change FactCheck: UK Analysis Confirms CO2 Emissions Not Producing Unprecedented, Irreversible & Accelerating Global Warming

Has modern human CO2 emissions caused unprecedented, irreversible and accelerating global warming? Convincingly not, per an analysis of UK's gold-standard climate research dataset...certainly, a very inconvenient climate 'FactCheck'.....

(click on image to enlarge)

Regarding claims of "irreversible" and "accelerating" global warming, the scientific empirical evidence (analysis of monthly measurements) comparisons is indisputable: over the last 15+ years, global warming has gone AWOL, which the climate "experts" are mystified about.

Ergo, modern global warming has been in a non-accelerating state, a status reversal taking place since the late 1990's.

Here and here, the scientific evidence from NOAA, when analyzed from a 5-year climate change viewpoint, clearly shows that both modern U.S. and world-wide warming are not "unprecedented" when compared to earlier 20th century periods.

Moving on to a different perspective, the adjacent chart documents that modern atmospheric CO2 levels growth was approximately 6 times greater than during that of the pre-1950 period.

Yet, this immense growth of modern emissions barely produced an uptick in 10-year global warming averages, when compared to a similar time span for the pre-1950s. This is the undeniable result of an analysis of the UK's HadCRUT4 global climate record dataset.

The difference between the two period's 10-year average increase was a trivial +0.1°C - that's well within the range of what natural climate variation could explain. If HadCRUT3 datapoints were used instead, the difference shrinks to +0.05°C.

These differences are meaningless; of no material, meaningful climate consequence; and, totally undeserving of the label "unprecedented."

Climate Change FactCheck Summation: Analyzing 1,853 datapoints of moving 10-year average global temperatures establishes there is no significant empirical evidence from the gold-standard HadCRUT4 climate records that would even suggest that modern-era warming deserves the "unprecedented" designation. Simply stated, scientists and politicians utilizing that adjective are intentionally being deceptive in order to solely advance a political agenda. Likewise, the deceptive use of the descriptors "accelerating" and "irreversible" are also not supported by any scientific evidence.

Additional information regarding the chart:

• From a 10-year average global temperature low, established during November 1976, the modern warming period spanned 410 months, ending during December 2010 when the 10-year average peak occurred.
• The pre-1950 (prior to the huge 'modern' consumer/industrial CO2 emissions) 10-year average temperature peaked during May 1945. Creating a similar 410-month span, establishes April 1912 as pre-1950 low point for this apple-to-apple comparison.
• The atmospheric CO2 level (ppm) growth amounts depicted by the chart are based on these two 410-month periods.
  

Previous modern global, regional and historical temperature charts.

Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce above infographic and 10-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Those Stubborn Facts: NOAA's Empirical Climate Records Reveal Truth, Modern Warming Same As Pre-1950 Natural Warming

Previously, using NOAA climate records, past U.S. warming (“global”) in the U.S. was compared to the modern U.S. warming...both warming periods were essentially the same despite the massive human CO2 emissions during the modern era…now an analysis of NOAA global temperatures reveals the same outcome…ah, those stubborn facts.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

The gigantic consumer/industrial CO2 emissions during the modern era are claimed by “consensus” climate scientists to have caused rapid, accelerating, unprecedented dangerous warming, never experienced by humans before.
But is this claim really true? Does climate reality support the catastrophic climate change hyperbole?

Nope. But you be the judge.

If CO2 emissions really matter, then their impact should be robustly apparent when analyzing long-term 5-year global climate warming averages. Simply stated, the differential impact from the gargantuan, modern CO2 emissions on global 5-year average warming should be significantly greater than pre-modern, natural warming for 5-year averages.

But that’s not the climate reality. Surprised?

As the adjacent graph of NOAA empirical evidence (5-year averages) reveals, the alarmists’ hyperbolic claims are without any scientific merit. The amount of modern warming (red dots) is nearly identical to the earlier 20th century warming (blue dots) that took place in the absence of large CO2 emissions.

In fact, the 381-month periods plotted in the graph have the earlier period warming to be just slightly higher (+0.01°C) than the modern warming.

To simplify, that’s totally contrary to what the UN’ IPCC and the major US and UK climate agencies have claimed and still widely promulgate.

For those more interested in the details of the chart’s plots, we move to a more complete description below…to the details!

Why was a 381-month (31.75 years) period chosen? Simple. Prior to 1950, the 5-year moving average of global temperatures peaked during October 1944. That peak was reached over a span of 381 months, from the starting trough low point of the 5-year average that occurred during February 1913. Voila, 381 months.

The modern 5-year average peak happened during January 2007. Working backwards to create a similar 381-month span, the start month for the modern period span is May 1975.

In order to produce a visual apple-to-apple comparison of the amount of warming for the two periods, the prior period’s 5-year averages were offset to start at the exactly same point as the modern warming period (‘offsetting’ the datapoints does not affect the slope of the earlier period’s warming trend, nor the amount of warming).

Although it is difficult to discern visually, as stated before, the earlier (pre-1950) 20th century warming actually was higher – a miniscule +0.01 degree higher, but still higher. That’s a freaking amazing outcome since all “experts” claim the modern era global warming was “unprecedented” and “unnatural.”

So what happens when the period span is changed to 300 months (25 years), using the same peak months as before (October 1944 and January 2007)?

It swings in favor of the modern span of warming – by incredibly the same amount of +0.01°C.

And if we used a 35-year comparison instead? OMG, modern warming just went berserk, clocking an unbelievable, higher modern warming of…wait for it…+0.07°C degree. (/sarc off)

And what if the comparison’s NOAA-benchmark was the trough-to-peak warming span of November 1976 to January 2007, a 363-month span (30.25 years)? Compared to a similar 363-month period, working backwards from October 1944, the modern warming was only +0.06°C higher, which is smaller than the  error bars of a standard thermometer measurement.

Yep, no matter how one slices and dices the 5-year average warming amounts, the modern era’s warming  represents an increase not even one-tenth of a degree greater than the pre-1950 warming – it is not only a statistically worthless difference, it is completely climate insignificant.

What’s the essential point here?

Those stubborn facts: Well, the amount of trough-to-peak modern warming is almost identical to the amount of pre-1950 trough-to-peak warming, which is clear indication that the modern warming was likely due to the same natural influences, regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions.

Certainly, one can’t conclude that CO2 does not have some role during warming periods, but NOAA’s empirical science research indicates it is ‘best practice’ science to conclude that the vast majority of modern warming was a result of non-human reasons.

As wise old people would say: “it’s the same old, same old.”

Additional climate change charts.

Note: NOAA global temperature dataset and Excel used to produce graphs and 5-year averages; or download original data from this site. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Straight-Talking Obama/Democrats’ Climate Plan: All Cost, No Benefit & Mucho Pain

Without doubt, when straight talking the Obama and EPA climate plan being pushed by the Democrats, the 'plan's' anti-science fundamentals, the global warming absurdities and anti-consumer harm it represents come to the forefront.....

(click on image to enlarge)

Does the new Obama climate plan have any significant impact on global warming?

===> No...based on the known climate facts, if Obama's EPA plan was enacted immediately today, by 2030 (16 years from now) it would, at best, eliminate 555 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year for a total reduction of 8.8 giga-tonnes...the global temperature impact would be zero, as seen to the left.

Will the Democrats' climate plan raise energy prices for Americans, thus increasing the growing income inequality gap?

===> Yes...even the EPA estimates energy prices will increase by 6.5% due to this plan, while real-world experts estimate consumer wallet pain will increase by some $17 billion per year.

Will this zero-impact global warming initiative harm economic growth and increase the ranks of unemployed?

===> Yes...Obama's past economic policies have destroyed the middle-class job market...this proposed climate plan will now potentially eliminate another 224,000 jobs per year...this result is due to the EPA's desire to reduce coal CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030, which means that 19% of all electricity-producing capacity based on coal will have to be removed...and that represents a $50 billion negative impact on the U.S. economy, plus a huge number of jobs devastated.

Does the EPA climate plan actually stop the burning of coal worldwide and reduce total coal CO2 emissions?

===> Absolutely No...countries such as China and India will continue to build the already planned, new 1,200 coal-generation plants at a record pace, and BTW, at the same time U.S. coal producers will now export that low cost coal that Obama regulators have essentially banned in the U.S., plus the EU is proposing to finance future coal generation capacity.

Will U.S. reduction of coal CO2 emissions impact global "climate change" and severe weather events?

===> NO...As in the case of zero impact on global temperatures, this Democratic-mandated plan will do nothing in regards to climate change, per the climate experts.

Straight-Talk Conclusion: The Obama/Democrat climate plan will not influence the global climate, nor temperatures. Increased regulations, bureaucracy, unemployment and consumer wallet pain will be unequivocal and accelerating. It's all economic cost, no climate benefit and mucho consumer pain.

Note: The above 'C3' simple calculator is based on the empirical climate records published by both the prime UK and US climate research agencies. By using their estimates of human CO2 emissions and global temperature changes since 1850, it can be estimated, by simple arithmetic, how much each metric tonne of CO2 emissions changes global temperatures. This historical, long-term relationship can be used to provide rule-of-thumb estimates of future impacts.

Newest Research: NOAA Adds Extreme Global Warming Bias To U.S. Climate Records

(click on graph to enlarge)

The political agenda of "global warming" is so important to government-sponsored scientists that massive fabrication of temperature warming is required to convince policymakers and the media.

The latest analysis (see graph) reveals the extent to which this temperature fabrication goes.

Although the actual climate records' empirical evidence shows essentially a flat temperature trend for the U.S. since 1985, NOAA has added warming "adjustments" to the historical empirical database to create a false warming trend of 1.5°F per century.

As this analysis indicates, consensus corruption of empirical science by U.S. scientists is active and robust, done with a seemingly obvious intent to deceive.

Additional temperature-fabrication and modern temperature charts.