C3

Don't Worry ===> "Catastrophic" Global Warming In 2 Graphs ===> Be Happy!

Well...er...be happy, unless the long-term global temperature deceleration continues into a miserable and dangerous global cooling situation...as the GISS (NASA) empirical evidence indicates, CO2-caused "catastrophic" global warming is an absolute non-issue.....   (click on below chart to enlarge)

What happens when one plots the GISS global temperature and CO2 trends for the long-term periods ending September 30, 1999 and September 30, 2014?

Yes, one gets the above two charts, revealing interesting, empirical climate science truths, such as:

1. The chart on the left (for periods ending Sept. 1999) reveals an acceleration of global warming trends, while the CO2 growth trends (see black dotted curve) across periods were fairly stable.

2. The chart on the right (for periods ending Sept. 2014) reveals a deceleration of global temperature change that over the 'last 10 years' reached a very slight global cooling status; yet, as can be seen, the CO2 growth trend was accelerating, reaching a rate robustly greater than those periods ending in 1999.

3. Other than a single datapoint (blue column), all the long-term temperature trends for the left chart exhibit warming greater than 1.5 degrees per century; in contrast, the majority of trends (blue columns) for the right chart are below 1.5 degree per century, despite faster CO2 growth and the associated higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

4. Rapid, dangerous, scary, undeniable, indisputable, irreversible, accelerating and catastrophic global warming claims made by various politicians, scientists, bureaucrats, celebrities and "journalists" are unequivocal lies. Long-term global temperature trends below 2 degrees (and going lower) are clearly the opposite of those widely-used, deceptive descriptors.

5. If it was not obvious before, CO2 is not a global "control knob" nor some type of "planet thermostat" - CO2 does not have much, if any, influence on temperature trends.

6. Confirming what climate skeptics (often called "deniers" for denigration purposes) have been stating for the last several decades, the climate changes constantly, primarily from natural forces. As a result, global temperature trends change frequently, exhibiting both cooling and warming modes across time spans.

We call it 'natural' climate change and ancient and historical climate records are replete with it. It happens often and, my goodness, it can be really extreme.

Now some caveats. The charts display a wide variety of temperature trends - they are not predictions for the future. They represent a snapshot in time and can change quickly.

One cannot conclude from the right chart that global temperatures will continue to decelerate into a glacial freezer. That would be exactly the same mistake that the climate "experts" made with the chart on the left - concluding that the temperature trends would just keep accelerating until hellish warmth would end-civilization-as-we-know-it.

And, these two charts cannot be used to claim that humans have no influence on global temperatures. Besides emissions of greenhouse gases, humans are constantly changing their environment which does have an impact (e.g. turning a corn field into an asphalt parking lot or massive deforestation in the world's major tropical rainforests or laying down a carpet of black soot on ice sheets).

Putting aside any further caveats, as an added bonus, the charts can be used to identify climate-liars. These are personalities and organizations that would never publish temperature charts as seen here. Instead, they resort to visual or verbal representations that today, or this month, or this year was the 'warmest' ever. This is not only the worst kind of cherry-picking, it is also incredibly lame.

Since the Little Ice Age (LIA), the world has been warming. It will continue to do so. Thus, we are going to keep experiencing warm(er) and warm(est) events - it's a no-brainer due to natural warming rebound. It will only stop happening when the world enters another mini ice age or worse. Those are the stubborn facts, which essentially makes CO2's trivial influence irrelevant.

When one hears the 'warmest' or 'warmer' refrains, that is when it becomes apparent one is in the company of a climate deception-meister.

Finally, let's all hope the global temperature deceleration shown on the right-most chart stops before it gets really ugly.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Note: Temperature dataset and CO2 dataset used to produce Excel charts and 2nd order fitted trend of the trends. Excel's slope function was used to caluclate each period's trend, then multipled by 1200 to produce a per century trend. 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.

New Research Finds Cloud Coverage Driving Modern Global Temperatures, Not Greenhouse Gases

The well documented 'pause' for the global warming trend over the last 15+ years has generated over 50 hypothetical science explanations...the latest cloud coverage analysis appears to be a better explanation.....

(click on to enlarge)

Greenhouse gases, including CO2, looking less and less the major drivers of global temperatures and climate change.

When objective (non-IPCC) science research is done, without the political agenda, Earth's climate seems dominated by natural forces.

ABSTRACT

From 1950 to 1987 a strong relationship existed between the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomaly, interrupted occasionally by volcanic eruptions. After 1987 the relationship diverged, with temperature anomaly increasing more than expected, but was re-established after 1997 at an offset of ~0.48°C higher. The period of increased warming from 1987 to 1997 loosely coincided with the divergence of the global average temperature anomalies over land, which are derived from observation station recordings, and the global average anomalies in sea surface temperatures. Land-based temperatures averaged 0.04°C below sea temperatures for the period 1950 to 1987 but after 1997 averaged 0.41°C above sea temperatures. The increase in the global average temperature anomaly and the divergence of land and sea surface temperatures also coincided with two significant changes in global average cloud cover. Total cloud cover decreased during the period from 1987 to 1997 and, for most of the remainder of the period from 1984 to 2009, decreases in low-level cloud were accompanied by increases in middle and upper level cloud. These changes can be found in both global average cloud cover and in each of the six 30°C-latitude bands. The impact of these changes in cloud cover can account for the variations in HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies and the divergence between land and sea temperatures.

h/t

Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

 

(source: http://www.thesuntoday.org)

While the EU's elite idiot-savants willfully tie their panties in knots over non-measurable "extreme" climate change from CO2, they continue to ignore the rogue elephant in the solar system.

Instead, those EU elites should start reading the real climate science articles.

What About Those New EU CO2 Reduction Goals? Per The Numbers, Global Temps Not Impacted

The EU elites and bureaucrats continue to beclown themselves...they are now going to pursue CO2 emission reductions that will accomplish zilch for the climate....

(click on image to enlarge)

The EU members have just agreed to reducing, by 2030AD, their own CO2 emissions by 40% based on 1990 levels (4.5 billion CO2 tonnes in 1990), for the next 17 years (including 2014, until the end of 2030).

That would simply average out to a 106 million tonne reduction per year.  The result by end of 2030 would be 1.8 billion less tonnes emitted by EU countries, per year - assuming they can force every single EU country to comply (stop it! no laughing).

For context, the EU since 1990 has reduced their annual CO2 emissions by 598 million tonnes, total. That is an average of 26 million tonnes per year of reduction success since the end of 1990 - a fraction of the 106 million tonne per year reduction average needed for the next 17 years.

What would be the impact on global temperatures if the EU could wave a wand and immediately reduce their current emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes/year?

Absolutely NOTHING....their reduction plans essentially have an unmeasurable yearly impact of global temperatures (i.e. 'unmeasurable' not being at least a 2 decimal point degree (C) decrease/increase, for example, -0.01, -0.02, +0.01, +0.01 and etc.).

The basic arithmetic of CO2's past impact on global temperatures can be determined utilizing the standard 3rd party estimates of total global temperature increase and total CO2 emissions from 1850 on.

Using the historical CO2 emission and temp records, since 1850 global temperatures have increased by 0.00000000000061°C per CO2 tonne emitted (assuming the climate-doomsday alarmists' claims that all warming is due to CO2 and that all human emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years).

As can be seen with the above depiction of the 'C3' CO2/temperature estimator, the total reduction of 1.8 billions tonnes of CO2 emissions will have absolutely no yearly measurable impact on global temperatures (top panel of depiction).

(The various arithmetic calculations are not difficult, however they are tedious. So instead, one can use this simple 'C3' estimation tool to broadly estimate the impact of CO2 reductions/avoidance (or additions) on global temps.)

Since an immediate 1.8 billion tonne annual reduction is not possible, but a 106 million tonne reduction/year over the next 37 years (including 2014 through the end of 2050) could possibly be accomplished, what is the temperature impact with that scenario?

Again, absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures (bottom panel of depiction). That's zero impact after 37 years of avoiding 106 million emission tonnes/year.

And by now you are probably asking yourself just how many years the EU has to reduce their CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year for a measurable impact to be produced (i.e. -0.01 degree change)?

Approximately 165 years from end of 2013! But wait...there's more absurdity...if they're reducing CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year, the EU finally gets to zero CO2 emissions by year 2056 (43 years from end of 2013 - currently, the EU emissions per year are about 3.9 billion tonnes per year).

So?

Well, it means the EU won't ever reach the 165 year mark in CO2 reductions to achieve a -0.01 degree impact. And two, over the next 43 years, despite the 106 million tonnes/year reduction, the EU will still emit another 74.5 billion tonnes in total. That translates into a global temperature impact of +0.04.

On top of this obvious futility from the EU's newest CO2 moral posturing, the other countries of the world will just keep emitting CO2, completely wiping out any reduction the EU achieves. Simply put, no one gives a flying f*#k what the EU does any longer - not Russia, not China, not India, not Brazil nor any other nation on the cusp of climbing out of economic poverty.

Even if other major emitters were to go along with the EU's preening, they will simply ignore their CO2 promises to protect their economies and their citizens. And what will the EU do do enforce their moral superiority? Hmmm...think Russia's wars with the Ukraine and Georgia or think Iran and nuclear weapons - yep, you're right, in diplomatic-speak, the EU can't and won't do squat.

The EU's latest CO2 self-righteousness is as worthless as used toilet paper and everyone knows it.

******************************************************************

Update: Another way to view the proposed 2030 impact of the new EU's CO2 reduction scheme.

If the EU's existing CO2 reduction achievements since 1990 continued through 2030, total EU emissions would be 63.1 giga-tonnes.That would produce a global temp increase of +0.039.

If the proposed 40% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 can be achieved, total emissions from 2014 through 2030 would 50.3 giga-tonnes. And that would produce a +0.031 increase.

It would seem the EU's plans to spend directly/indirectly billions-to-trillions of Euros to reduce global temps, by maybe only 8-thousandths of a degree, is tantamount to collective insanity by the elites.

*************************************************************************

Note: Global temperature source; historical and modern CO2 emission tonnes used by the 'C3' estimator tool. This tool is a quick and dirty means to calculate CO2's impact on temperatures. More information here.

Per NASA/GISS: Global Warming Robustly Decelerates, Climate Change From CO2 Disappears

If CO2-induced climate change is defined as extreme weather disasters, then recent years are proving to be a bust...likewise, the much feared rapid and ferocious global warming predicted - from CO2, of course - has turned into an insignificant pussy cat, per the GISS/NASA climate records.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

By year 2050, how much warmer will it be?

As the climate "experts" and $billion$ computer models have proven decisively, they are completely clueless when it comes to predicting future global temperatures.

Fifteen years ago, this graph's red curve, representing temperature trends, was tracking right along with the CO2 grey curve - such that, as of the end of September 1999, the 10-year temp trend was on a 2050AD warming pace of +1.1ºC.

But as the adjacent chart now reveals, by end of September 2014, that previous +1.1ºC trend has changed to a -0.03ºC cooling trend despite the continuous acceleration of atmospheric CO2 levels. A powerful testament to the overwhelming significance of natural climate change that far exceeds the influence of of a trace gas such as CO2. 

And remember, not a single IPCC or NASA/GISS "expert" predicted this outcome - just the opposite in fact.

As the graph's red plot depicts, global warming trends have been on a deceleration path for an extended period, indicating a strong likelihood that global warming by 2050 will be nowhere close to he current official predictions.

Did we mention 'pussy cat' warming yet?

Obviously, the "settled" science of slam-dunk global warming is in shambles. And natural climate change made it so, much to the chagrin of those elites pushing "consensus" anthropogenic dogma.

Without doubt, in the scheme of urgent, priority issues facing the nation - global warming ain't one of them, which the American public already knows and reflects.

Additional global and regional temperature charts.

Those Stubborn Facts: By 2050, Global Sea Level Increases May Range From 1.8" To 3.2"

The climate-doomsday cult has long stated that coastal areas of the world are being swamped by accelerating sea rise due to rapid "global warming"...fortunately, skeptics of global warming alarmism have been proven right by the latest empirical research....

Source: www.bing.com

EU researchers analyzed multi-mission satellite records in a new study and determined the following:

1. A huge bulge in the Western Pacific is responsible for much of the past "global" sea rise.

2. Since 2002, sea level rise has greatly decelerated.

3. Globally, on average, sea levels are currently increasing at a 2.31 mm/year rate (that's a 3.2 inches by year 2050 rate).

This research confirms what other scientists have already recently found by analyzing tide gauge records around the world.

For example, a group of scientists examined sea level rise around the North Sea. What they discovered was an absence of evidence confirming the doomsday predictions of soon-to-be submerged coasts.

==> "Based on their analysis of all the available data, the four researchers determined that "linear long-term trends in the Inner North Sea (1.6 mm/yr) are similar to global trends (1.7 mm/yr) but smaller in the English Channel (1.2 mm/yr)." And they report that "although the recent rates of sea level rise were high, there is no evidence yet that sea level rise has accelerated over the last decades in the North Sea region.""

A 1.7mm/year increase converts to a 2.16 inch rise by 2050AD and for the English Channel, 1.2mm/yr equals 1.8 inches by 2050.

Conclusion: Ahhh...those damnable stubborn facts. By 2100, and certainly 2050, the North Sea coastline (and others across the globe) will retain its majestic beauty, still existing as it is known today. Thus, proposed trillion dollar tax hikes and higher price schemes for fossil fuel usage are a total waste since lower cost adaption techniques can be effectively implemented to deal with the such meager rises the world likely faces.

Previous sea level articles.

"Hottest" Year? If So, The World's Major Food Crops Are Simply Loving It, Per The USDA

Science "journalists" who promulgate climate change hysteria have been recently pushing the fearmongering of the "hottest" year meme (or "warmest" if you prefer), which is essentially a lie...apparently, both the world's food crops and the public are simply now ignoring the proclamations of these chicken little, climate-cult doomsday criers.....

(click on image to enlarge)

The science is undeniable: the majority of plant life, including major agricultural crops, prosper under climatic conditions that are warmer and enriched with CO2.

Despite the recent significant pause in the global warming trend, world temperatures still creep up, always presenting opportunities for fearmongering-style reporting.

Yet the global warming doomsday prognostications of these "reporters" never materialize - even the International Red Cross report is not so blind to the climate "disaster" reality.

And as this adjacent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) chart clearly documents, the world's major food crops produce greater bounty as the climate warms.

On the chart, superimposed is the latest NASA/GISS two-year average temperature on the chart, which indicates the slow creep of global warming. As greenhouse growers have known for over 100 years, a plant's productivity increases with a warmer climate environment.

It would seem that corn, wheat, rice and soybeans are no different than other plants.

In fact, from this report we learn:

• the 2014 U.S. corn production is espected to shatter the previous 2013 record
• over 70% ofthis year's corn crop is rated as of excellent quality
• other global crops, such as barley, wheat and soybeans are experiencing huge production in 2014
• and global rice output is approaching record levels

So, what's not to like about a slightly warmer climate? Bring the "warmest" on, with its greater food production; crop-loving rainfall; fewer tornadoes; and less frequent U.S. hurricanes.

Previous food-flood-drought-fire articles.

The Renewable Ears Market Potential: Low Frequency Noise From Wind Turbines Potentially Harmful Long-Term

(source: http://news.sciencemag.org)

The class action tort community must be starting to salivate.

Since the construction and installation of wind turbines involves a lot of potential deep-pockets to sue, this could be a lucrative market for the ambulance chasers.

With the science of hearing impairment building an ever stronger case, the wind power industry might be facing some very unwanted asbestos-like litigation.

Is it time to short wind futures? Go long into the renewable-ear market?

Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

See here #tcot @gop @housegop @nrsc

The week began with the former environmental minister delivering 'shock & awe' to UK's establishment elites...the government's climate and energy policies should be scrapped - they're a failure.

Americans Vote: Climate Change & Global Warming Still Not Important

#peoplesclimate #tcot @gop

As the opinion polls document, Americans apparently not influenced very much by the mainstream media's mass hysteria and gross decptions about global warming and global warming.

CO2's Impact On Global Temperature Trends: Minimal To Non-Existent, Per IPCC's Gold-Standard

Climate change, as represented by global cooling and global warming trends, is in a constant flux...the IPCC's gold-standard temperature dataset provides the empirical proof that a natural cycle of ups and downs is the reality - past, present & future.....

(click on graph to enlarge)

How much global warming (or cooling) will take place by 2050AD?

The flat-out, scientific truth is that nobody really knows. Not the IPCC. Not the climate models. Not the experts. And certainly not the green crony-facilitators, Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben (fyi...crony Al Gore just loves them to death.)

This chart plotting the IPCC's gold-standard (HC4) of global temperature trends, of past and present, reveals why it is so incredibly difficult to predict climate change, be it of short or long-term nature. Climate change is constantly happening - going from one warming acceleration to the next cooling acceleration extreme, rather rapidly.

And note, this takes place regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels (see black curve), and associated human CO2 emissions. Clearly, the skyrocketing CO2 levels since the 1950's are not responsible for such wide variance in temperature trends, since they can even be observed a century before.

In fact, based on a visual inspection, one could surmise that climate change extreme trends have lessened since the modern increase of CO2 levels.

As can be seen, shorter cooling/warming trends have been highly variable from the very start of recording instrumentally-measured "global" temperatures. The light red (12-mth) and green (60-mth) plots readily show this.

So, when did the greatest acceleration of warming trends take place? Amazingly, all the warming spikes that matched or equaled ±20°C took place (see yellow-tinted boxes) prior to the last 40 years of massive human CO2 emissions.

Regarding the 10, 20 and 30-year climate change variability, there is no question that the wild and natural extremes of the short-term always return to a rather mundane long-term variability. The dark blue, cyan and bright red plots indicate long-term climate change that is...well...pretty mundane.

How mundane?

Compared to a 12-month climate change extreme trend of +25.0°C reached in 1878, the 30-year trend extreme only reached a maximum of +0.72°C (during 2003) and has now been reduced to a August 2014 30-year trend of 0.61°C - and relative to the 1940's, that's a trend only eight-hundredths of a degree greater.

Conclusion: Climate change never stops. Whether short-term or long-term, global temperature trends constantly accelerate/decelerate. Human CO2 emissions have nothing to do with this extreme variability - it is a natural phenomenon that is chaotic, totally unpredictable and unstoppable. The climate change indicated by today's temperature trends is insignificantly different than the past climate change. And those are the stubborn facts.

Additional pre-modern, global and regional temperature charts.

Note: Linear temperature trends do not represent predictions (any trend today can be drastically different in the future). Excel's slope function was used to calculate the moving trends for each time span (by month) and to plot them. To calculate the trends by 2050AD, the derived slope for each month and each time-span trend was multiplied by 424 months (after August 2014, there are only 424 full months until January 1, 2050AD). HadCRUT4 global dataset and CO2 (ppm) datasets used for chart can be found here.

Peer-Reviewed Study: Canadian Climate Warming - Not So Much, eh?

#climate2014 #peoplesclimate   Much angst and ink has been spent on the "catastrophic warming" of world's northern latitudes...yet when the scientific research is accomplished that alarmist warming screed appears to be without much merit.....

Canadian researchers analyzed temperature datasets from a total of 146 weather stations with goal of determining temperature extremes across the nation.

The researchers found the following:

1. Warming is stronger during the nighttime hours.

2. Warming is stronger in the winter months.

3. Warming is stronger in the Arctic latitudes.

4. Warming is strongest for extreme low temperatures.

"The scientists' conclusion was the following: "Overall, our results are consistent with those reported in previous studies, particularly in the sense that Canada has become much less cold but not much hotter."

In other words, most of the warming took place at the lowest temperatures; during the coldest hours; at the coldest regions; and during the coldest seasons.

And this peer reviewed finding confirms what many other regions of the world have experienced: global "warming" is not about ever hotter maximum temperatures, it is more about the warming of the coldest temperatures (i.e., warmer minimums).

Previous peer-reviewed articles.

Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

http://ow.ly/C2kAx  #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc

Hollywood celebrity started the week with a bang...confirming corruption is alive and well within the 'green' activist brigade.

Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site

Can The All-Electric Nissan Leaf Save The World From A 0.01 Degree Warming? Yep & It Would Only Cost $40+ Trillion

Based on current U.S. subsidies to promote non-CO2 emission vehicle purchases, what would be the cost to the U.S. taxpayers for supporting a goal of avoiding a +0.01°C global warming increase?

The answer? Over $40 trillion.

To simplify this example, we compare a modern all-electric vehicle (aEV), the Nissan Leaf, to a modern high MPG gas vehicle, the Nissan Versa. Customers are provided a very large tax subsidy for the former, while the latter receives none. (Substitute any all-electric vehicle for the aEV Leaf and any high MPG gas auto for the Versa and the issues remain the same.)

In order to achieve the goal of 0.01°C potential reduction in global warming, how many Leafs would need to be bought instead of the Versa vehicle? And how much would that cost the American taxpayers?

Summary: Some 5.6 billion Leafs would need to be purchased, putting Americans on the the hook for $42 trillion in subsidies.

For those interested, we now go to the arithmetic behind those two answers. (Here is a different analysis approach to the same issue.)

The modern gasoline Nissan Versa achieves a 35mpg rating; with each gallon burnt producing 19 pounds of CO2.  If on average, each Versa is driven 12,000 miles per year, a total of 342.85 gallons would be consumed. That amount of gas gallons equals 6,515 pounds of CO2, which converts to 2.96 metric tonnes of CO2 per year per the average driven Versa.

Since 1850, through the end of 2013, there has been 1.44 trillion metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. During that same span, the average annual global temperature has increased by +0.86°C. By dividing this temperature increase by the total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1850, it is determined that one CO2 metric tonne is associated with an increased global temperature of 0.0000000000006.

Put another way, each CO2 tonne hypothetically equates with 6 ten-trillionths of a degree (C). And that means each Versa's 2.96 tonnes of emissions would hypothetically equate to a temperature impact of 18 trillionths of a degree, per year.

How many Versas would have to be sold (instead of the CO2 clean Leaf) to equate to a +0.01°C increase?

5.6 billion Versas.

Now flip the coin. To avoid a 0.01 degree increase, Americans would have to buy 5.6 billion Nissan Leafs, instead of the Versas. For Americans, that's a 'Leaf' in every pot, garage, attic, bedroom, basement and all bathrooms, so to speak. (Hey good news!...only 560 million need to be sold if each vehicle survives 10 years; of course, the batteries will wear out way before then.)

And each and every one of those Leafs would potentially get a $7,500 tax credit, paid for by the American taxpayer - amounting  to a $42+ trillion cost for reducing potential warming by a hypothetical 0.01 degree.

Of course, there are other all-electric vehicles sold in the U.S. that are also available with the hefty tax credit. Since 2010, when the $7,500.00 tax credit began, there has been an estimated 100,000 all-electric vehicles sold in the US. A tiny dirt clod on the mountain of 5.6 billion needed. The aEV niche market remains very tiny, for a lot of reasons.

If the 100,000 number is accurate, then it would appear that Americans have already subsidized some $750 million on this 'green' fiasco in order to achieve a hypothetical future temperature reduction, which can't even be globally measured - that's a lot of $$$-something for absolutely climate nothing.

This is just another example of the hugely stupid and expensive 'green' policies that politicians have saddled the American taxpayer with.

Why did this happen?

Frankly, it's mostly due to the mainstream press fanning the flames of mass climate doomsday-cult hysteria.  Instead of journalists producing sober and reasoned reporting, they drank the cult's global warming 'kool-aid' and became cheerleaders of wildly irresponsible reporting - essentially hysterical, anti-science claims. (Here's a recent example of mainstream media's insane global warming doomsday-cult style of reporting.)

Prior to this legislation being passed by legislators pressured by special interest groups, journalists could have been investigating the empirical evidence and doing the calculations themselves. Their research would have generated tough questions that could have been posed to the politicos and bureaucrats, forcing a rational and scientific debate. However, it would seem, the "journalists" did no due diligence other than reading and then reporting verbatim the press releases of special interest groups.

So, instead of $750 million flowing into research dealing with, say, children's cancer, Alzheimers, ebola and other important scientific endeavors, the hundreds of millions went to crony-capitalists and the very wealthy. Sadly, even more of this taxpayer lucre will flow for each new aEV sold with no meaningful climate result.

Helloooo, Washington D.C.... maybe new legislative commonsense rules should be imposed for any future 'green' policies and regulations to be considered.

An example: no legislation will even be considered unless the scientific empirical evidence (not computer models/simulations) confirms that any new policy/rule/subsidy will achieve a global warming reduction of at least 0.01 degree within 10 years for a cost that does not exceed $10 billion/year for taxpayers and consumers. 10 years at $10 billion is a $100 billion cost, which is still a ludicrous, mind-boggling amount for such a measly result.

(If readers have ideas for new common sense rules that Congress should commit to in order to avoid any more costly 'green' stupidity, leave a comment or two.

And BTW politicos...if wealthy Americans want to certify their own 'greeness' they can start paying for it on their own dime, not steal from the wallets of less fortunate Americans.

Previous aEV articles and other 'green' politico stupidity: cash-for-clunkers, light bulbs and plastic bags.

Note: Supposedly, the ludicrously large tax credit for all-EVs is going to expire. The likelihood of this incredible waste of taxpayer money being ended is extremely low since few Washington politicians possess the courage to vote against the powerful corporate welfare lobbyists, while also ending the subsidies to the wealthy purchasers of the Nissan Leaf, Tesla and other aEV cars.

The CO2 emissions expended to manufacture a Nissan Leaf are not included in this analysis; nor the CO2 emissions used to charge the Leaf every night/day; nor the other significant environmental impacts and costs associated with producing batteries for an aELV; nor the taxpayer loans (ie. cost) car aEV companies like Nissan received from the US government.

Download an Excel spreadsheet with pertinent data and calculations used to determine Versa CO2 production, temp impact and taxpayer dollars per 0.01 degree.

After 20 Years of Cumulative CO2 Growth, Global Warming Trend Creeps Towards +0.38°C by 2050AD

Ahhh, those stubborn facts...it's now been two decades+ that the public has been warned about the existing dangerous and rapidly accelerating global temperatures...a warming that was supposed to produce catastrophic doomsday climate changes...except it hasn't happened, which the gold-standard of global surface temperatures document.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

Has two-decades worth of cumulative CO2 growth in the atmosphere caused the "experts'" predicted dangerous and rapidly accelerating global warming?

That's the straight-forward question.

And the straight-forward answer is?

Well, despite all that CO2 growth, global warming has slowed to a creep on the Earth's surface, and in the atmosphere, global warming has flat-lined.

Using the IPCC's gold-standard global surface dataset (the UK's HadCRUT4), this chart plots the cumulative growth in temperature along with NOAA's reported cumulative growth in atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm).

For CO2 (grey curve), there is a clear and consistent upward growth of CO2 levels - unrelenting would be an apt description. In contrast, global temperatures are all over the map, with highs and low being constantly...er, variable.

The end results over the 20 years ending August 2014 are fairly obvious:

• The visual relationship between CO2 and global temperatures appears to be very weak; in fact, statistically the r² is 0.19, which can be interpreted as being close to a zilch relationship.
• Per both the 2nd order fitted trend (blue curve) and the 36-month moving average (red curve), the deceleration of the global warming trend and a plateauing can easily be seen.
• Over the 20 years, there have been exceptional warm(-est!) months/years, often followed by exceptional cool months/years.
• And since September 1994, the exhibited warming trend amounts to a measly increase of a non-doomsday +0.38°C by year 2050AD.

How easy is it to say, three times quickly?: catastrophe-climate-doomsday-cult-is-discredited.

So, does all the above empirical evidence mean that human CO2 has no impact on global temperatures? Nope. Does it mean the world will no longer warm? Does it mean humans don't have an impact on continuous natural climate change? Nope. Does it mean that the world should quit trying to be energy and carbon efficient? Not at all.

What it does mean, though, is that the public and the policymakers were greatly deceived by the "consensus" science and computer models that loudly declared (and btw, still do) imminent disasters and doomsday global warming.

As the current climate conditions now indicate a slow, creeping climate change scenario, it provides policymakers and the public the luxury of time to continue moving to a more carbon-efficient economy, thus improving the environment without needlessly sacrificing quality of life and living standards.

In summary, it's another case of those stubborn facts: the empirical evidence does not lie; but computer models and "experts" do.

Traditional global, regional and historical temperature charts depicting those stubborn facts of climate science.

Note: Download HC4 and CO2 datasets. Excel used to make calculations, trends and chart. The chart covers 240 monthly records, starting with Sept. 1994. For this graph, both the temperature and CO2 datapoints were set to zero; then the cumulative changes for both were plotted each month - does not affect linear trends when done this way.

Memo To GOP: Cut Def. Budget Until Idiot AGW-Warriors Retired From Service

#agw #scam #tcot @gop @nrsc @housegop

West Point wastes time teaching cadets GLOBAL WARMING. Military only operates in HOT, COLD, DRY, WET. http://t.co/UVPy9zEQQn

— JunkScience.com (@JunkScience) October 6, 2014

Climate headlines from other sources this past week...

http://ow.ly/C2kAx  #peoplesclimate #agw @gop @housegop @nrsc

Note: for regular 'C3' blog readers, above are hashtags and urls for 'C3' twitter feed; click on first url to visit other 'C3' headline site

U.S. Wildfires Inversely Correlated With CO2 - The More CO2 The Less Acres Burnt, Per Empirical Evidence

Every time there is a forest fire (ie wildfire) global warming alarmists, like a pack of Pavlov's dogs, start hysterically howling that human CO2 caused the recent incendiary event...while at the same time claiming their predictions of increasing wildfire damage from CO2-warming are coming true...however, like always, the empirical evidence proves the alarmists are without scientific portfolio.....

(click on graph to enlarge)

Let's cut to the chase - are human CO2 emissions causing an increase in U.S. forest acreage being decimated by flames?

The adjacent chart is a plot of U.S. wildfire acreage going back to 1926, through the end of 2013. The green curve represents acres burnt (in millions).

In addition, the chart includes the plot of lumber harvested (billion board-feet) from U.S. forests and atmospheric CO2 levels over the same approximate time span. The brown curve is the lumber harvest; the grey curve is CO2 (ppm).

What does the chart indicate?

Wildfire acreage burnt collapsed after the 1930s. Not only did this collapse coincide with a growth of atmospheric CO2 levels from human CO2 emissions, the huge decrease in acres burnt took place when the harvesting of lumber from U.S. forests grew massively.

Then, as the total amount of harvested lumber declined and reached a significantly lower level - due to new environmental regulations - the number of acres burnt each year started to incrementally increase during the 1990's.

Intuitively this makes sense. As the dead and disease-infected trees started to pile up from lack of harvesting due to environmentalist concerns and government regulations, the U.S. forests became wildfire tinderboxes, easily set off by lightening and human carelessness - the law of unintended consequences from passionate 'green' policies strikes again.

Per the statistical relationships, both board-feet harvested and CO2 levels have an inverse correlation (-0.6 and -0.5, respectively) with the acreage scorched, across the entire time span.

Conclusion: It's always dangerous to draw firm conclusions from just statistics, but the empirical evidence strongly suggests that both lumbering and higher CO2 levels makes for less wildfires. The record clearly shows that wildfire damage over the last two decades are not unprecedented, and it remains well below the horrendous amount of acres burned during the early 20th century. For policymakers, the sanest recommendation towards improving U.S. forest health is to increase the amount of allowed lumbering, thus thinning forests of tinderbox materials; plus, to recognize any future CO2 increases as a potential contributor to healthy forest growth.

Previous severe-disaster charts and events.

H/T: Not A Lot of People Know That

Note: The wildfire acreage burned during years 1926-1959 and the lumber board-feet harvested came from this congressional testimony by scientific forestry expert; post 1959 data from this government agency site. CO2 datasets found here. The chart's right axis represents both atmospheric CO2 levels and harevested board-feet. For the latter, the largest number at the top, '1300', reads as 13 billion board-feet; for CO2, it would read 1,300 ppm.

Comparison of NASA/Hansen Climate Model Vs. Climate Reality: As of August 2014

When one compares the output of CO2-centric climate models, such as the one developed by James Hansen when he was with NASA, to the actual climate records, the comparison reveals how absolutely terrible the climate models have been at predictions...rest assured, as of the end of August 2014, that hasn't changed.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

Since the HadCRUT folks just released their August global temperature dataset, it was time to update the adjacent graph of the (in)famous NASA climate model versus the reality.

Back around 1988, James Hansen of NASA presented his climate model computer simulations, which predicted that global warming would be excessive and dangerous if CO2 emissions continued in a similar 'business-as-usual' (BAU) manner.

On the chart, the green curve is NASA's depicted BAU scenario for global temperatures. This was referred to as 'Scenario A' for global temperatures and was associated with a CO2 emission metric tonne growth that exceeded 1.5% per year.

For the record, over the last 15 calendar years CO2 emission tonne growth has clocked in at about 2.5% per year - well over the 'BAU' bar that Hansen and NASA had proclaimed as an end-of-the-world disaster as we know it.

Putting this into a context of proper comparison, the 15 years ending 1987, before the 1988 prediction, had a per year emission growth that averaged about 1.9%, less than the 15-year average growth ending 2013.

So what happened to the global temps? Indeed, the chart tells the story - not too much.

Hansen and NASA predicted that a BAU scenario would produce a global warming in 2014 that is represented by the large red dot on the chart. In reality though, both the NASA/GISS and HadCRUT global temperature datasets reveal warming by 2014 that is significantly below the climate model BAU prediction.

In fact, both global temperature datasets reveal a climate-reality outcome that resembles the NASA 'Scenario C' (see aqua/cyan curve) that could only happen if global CO2 emission tonnes were reduced to a mere fraction of the "dangerous" 1.5% growth.

Why this obvious and immense failure by government scientists and advanced computer technology? It's simple...CO2 emissions are not causing rapid, accelerating global warming, which the failed billion$ computer models assumed would happen due to growing CO2.

And embarrassingly, they still do, despite the almost two-decade 'pause' in the global warming trend.

Previous climate-model charts.