The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cult is frustrated that they haven’t been able to convince enough people in the United States to believe their thesis lie that humans (with their lust for fossil fuels) are altering Earth’s climate and that if we don’t stop we’ll die from either rising oceans, drought, heat, snowstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes or ocean acidification. They’ve tried Global Cooling, Global Warming and Climate Change but no matter how much feces they throw on the wall, nothing seems to stick.
The latest gathering of AGW cult members (called COP18) was an even bigger disgrace than the last one. Not only did they leave Doha with zero binding agreements, a portion of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5) was leaked and it showed the AGW computer models were even more flawed than anyone expected.
This latest AGW failure gave me an opportunity to update my charts showing global temperatures as they relate to global atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Here is the graph of atmospheric CO2 measurements as gathered by the Mauna Loa observatory and you can see that the CO2 levels are continuing to increase.
Here are the plots of global temperature averages compiled by the Climate Research Unit and the University of Alabama Huntsville.
Let’s now look at these same temperature graphs but starting with 1998 and you can easily see that we are still in a period of flat temperature growth (I’ve added trend lines with the equation for extra emphasis).
Furthermore, if increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 cause increased global temperatures then we should see a linearly increasing line when we plot global temperature anomaly (delta from a baseline period) on the Y-axis and atmospheric CO2 concentration on the X-axis. From the graph below, you can see that something happened when CO2 concentrations increased to around the 370 ppm point to stop that upward trend and this inflection point raises questions. Is some other variable(s) counter acting any warming caused by CO2? Has the warming effect of CO2 reached a limit?
As with my previous updates, I’ll leave you with this. You can choose to believe the emotionally charge rhetoric of the AGW cult or you can choose to believe the data. Let’s hope the American people and those we elect continue to side with the data.
Addendum – I have many posts on Climate Change that can be found here and if you are interested in a deeper dive of the science then I suggest two posts here and here.
cosmoscon 
Let’s call the GCC crowd and their theories what they really are: anti-capitalist, pro-third world policies, and another attempt at global redistribution of wealth. Mann at Penn State has been exposed as a hoax, and the emails from East Anglia only add to the lies.
The science is not “settled”, and “99%” of the world’s scientists are NOT in agreement. You can always judge the validity of one’s argument by their hyperbole. The more hyperbole, the less fact.
I beg to differ. Their “Solutions” to the non-existent problem of global warming/climate change/global climate disruption/thermageddon are not “pro-third world.” They are guaranteed to cause more deaths from starvation and exposure among the world’s poorest populations because they limit access to the one thing that lifted the West out of poverty–access to cheap energy. The only wealth being transferred is from one internationalist Kletpocracy to another.
My point is that pushing a program that would allow underdeveloped countries to sell their carbon credits (at a huge price) to developed nations is “pro third world”. Perhaps my semantics don’t match your interpretation, but I would venture that you and I are in agreement on the subject…..
2 sides; same coin; etc.,…
As I’ve said before, Cosmo, I do love it when you break out the charts and graphs!
AGW is the biggest fraud since snake-oil was being hawked by peddlers from town to town.
Keep up the good fight, and maybe common sense will return to our nation….someday.
Thanks for doing all the work on this, Cosmos. I read everything I can on the global warming theory. Did you know there was a much longer period from the sun of sunspots up until just a few years ago? I forget the terminology but the sun woke up very late and then became very active again and now it’s kind of bursting with energy. I do think our solar system’s power unit has more to do with our climate than anything. I think the other planets are warming as well according to our scientists.
I’ll read the other posts you’ve done on this.
Great work!!
Hi. Really impressive how you are trying to follow the science on this. It is really scary thong that’s happening with the world right now and it’s important that we work to understand. Climate science is really complicated: if it was just a matter of comparing graphs of co2 concentrations and average temperatures, there would be no debate going on. But some of the world’s largest supercomputers are in use in climate research.
At the same time, some of the science is easy: here is a website that explains an experiment with baking soda and vinegar that demonstrates the warming effects of CO2. I did t in 2 small bottles, each with their own thermometer, standing by the window in the sun.
Click to access ACER%20Warming%20of%20CO2.pdf
So we can see easily that CO2 warms, and we know that we have been producing loads of CO2 especially since we began using fossil fuels big time in the industrial revolution. The next question is whether there is something about the earth that means there is some mechanism that regulates CO2 so that it will NOT continue to warm, first the air, then the oceans, which in turn warms the air some more, etc.etc. Most climate scientists today say there isn’t a special mechanism. And in Australia at the moment, where they’ve had to put new colors on the temperature map to illustrate what’s happening, they say there isn’t. Sydney had its highest recorded temperature ever last week. Ditto Canberra. Ditto the national average temperature – over 40 degrees Celcius. And in the US, you’ve had clear evidence of the changing air currents – caused by changing patterns of air circulation as the temperature increases – with hurricane Sandy.
But the larger question is this. We can see the climate Is changing. Some people say it is man-made and some maintain it is not, but the changes themselves are inargueable. How will we respond?
In the 18th century, the great mathematician Pascal tried to calculate statistically whether it was better to believe in God or not. His conclusion was that the rewards for believing in God were much greater than the alternative. We can do a similar exercise now: if the climate change cult-worship ears are correct and CC will devastate the earth, then we must act. If they are wrong, but we still act, where are we then? We will be societies which are not dependent on fossil fuels – no more wars in the Middle East over oil. No more foreign policy hypocrisy as we support rulers because of their oil reserves rather than their politics. Freeing up of billions of dollars worth of oil subsidies paid every year to oil companies by the US, Australia and other governments. Imagine what that would mean for spending on education, roads, aged care, or even tax cuts? Imagine if all the power for your house came from solar cells or a small wind or hydro generator- no more bills to the power company, no more brown outs because businesses have their air on on too high.
Imagine if the appliances you used in your home lasted 10-15 years, and you could take them to be repaired because manufacturers were no longer able to build in obsolescence because it had become too expensive to throw out things that still have some use. And imagine electric cars – what if there was no more engine noise when you were downtown – could being in the city become almost as peaceful as being in the country? Although probably we will continue to have petrol cars, just more efficient. But imagine being able to get wherever you want by hopping on a bus or tram nor train! No getting stuck in traffic, no hunting for parking spots, no more ridiculous speeding tickets – it’ a reality in many European cities already.
I could go on, but I’m sure you see my point: by making our world cleaner from pollution, by making sure we use the resources we have fully, by throwing out as little as possible, then we make the world a fairer and more pleasant place to live AND we will be tackling Climate Change if it exists – at least on a personal level.
I couldn’t find a link to the Climate Research Instsute you mentioned, but here is a link to the Climate research group at Columbia – their website seems to have lots of scientific data available for the public. http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt
Incidentally, did you see that the reinsurers for Hurricane Sandy are saying that much more needs to be done to prepare for the effects of Climate Change? I think once the insurance industry is talking in terms of Climate Change being a certainty, the probabilities are most likely good enough for the rest of us as well!
Kirsten, Your concern trolling is just precious. The links to my data are in this post and feel free to check them out on your own. And don’t try to leave comments linking to AGW cult sites like Real Climate.
Pingback: Climate Change And The Ikea Effect | cosmoscon
Pingback: Climate Change And Blizzards | cosmoscon