The complete elimination of all fossils in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050 and by less than one fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100, according to MAGICC,  the Model for Assessment of Greenhouse gas Induced by Climate Change, a NCAR/US government computer model to establish the effect of zero emissions

NCAR is the go-to agency for the US Government and IPCC climate modelers to determine the impact of CO2 on world climate. MAGICC Model projects what would be the impact on temperature of the Earth.

if the United States, or any other political subdivision on Earth, ceased the burning of all fossil fuels now, not at some distant time in the future, would be a complete waste of time.

By definition, a period with high carbon dioxide emissions with out warming cannot provide evidence that emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, which is hardly a problem anyway. 

A 39 year of cooling 1940 to 1979 was accompanied by a large rise in CO2 emissions, equal to levels in recent warming periods, can we explain that? This was the period when scientist were seeking funds/grants on how to cope with the “coming ice age”. They wanted to cover the ice caps with soot.  Newspaper articles portrayed the depth of panic in the media caused by scientists who were trying to obtain government funding for further study on how to combat global cooling not global warming. 

John Holdren, chief climate adviser to the Obama administration and several presidents who helped Al Gore with his documentary, was among several scientists seeking funding for research who gave up and switched from global cooling to warming when world temperatures began to rise ever so slightly.

Warming began again in the years between 1980 to 1997 which preceded another period of stable temperatures between 1998 and 2014. In the period since 2014, according to CRU, temperatures increased in 2015-2016 then cooled significantly in 2017 and 2018 followed by warmer 2019, about one degree above pre-industrial levels which are generally regarded as the period between 1880-1900.

CO2 rose from 291 ppm to 3oo ppm between 1880 and 1910 + 9 ppm. Cooling

CoolingCO2 rose from 3oo ppm to 311 ppm between 1910 -1940. + 11 ppm. Warming

CO2 rose from 311 ppm to 337 ppm between 1940-1979. + 26 ppm. Cooling

CO2 rose from 337 ppm to 366 ppm between 1979 -1998. + 29 ppm. Warming   

CO2 rose from 366 ppm to 393 ppm between 1998 and 2014. + 27 ppm. Pause

CO2 rose from 393 ppm to 401 ppm between 2014 and 2019. +  8 ppm. .?

Historic Emission Data 1                                               Historic lEmission Data 2.


           CO2 and Hottest Years


  1. Florida Mansions says:

    One degree of warming in 139 years is not much, especially when only half that was due to man. The IPCC now say 100% was from AGW. The CRU have cleaned up their act and have stopped fudging data, unlike NASA and NOAA, who are 0.196 C, above CRU in recent published climate data for 2018 and that’s not including the 0.004 C it was raised after reviewing their previous 2018 data.

  2. Judith Rayson says:

    It seems that MAGICC have bailed out of the emission/warming ratio. According to hacked emails from the climate gate scandal they were heavily involved in producing graphs at the behest of Tom Wrigley and others. Maybe they have seen the writing on the wall!

    • Roy says:

      What this study indicates is that we will not exceed our current emissions if we adopt a zero emissions target. If we don’t then we are going to exceed the 1.2 C above the pre-industrial period.
      This is actually good news.

  3. John Carlson says:

    By 2050 we will be well into the next global cooling phase.
    So our problem will be an overpopulated planet unable to feed itself due to a cold, dry climate.
    We will look back on our present warm, wet, abundant planet and wonder what the hell we were thinking!

  4. Talford says:

    Zero emissions is precisely the sort of idiotic green left wing nonsense that not only will not happen, it cannot happen.
    It is just utter fanciful stupidity of the highest order. The only individuals and companies providing superficial support to this farce are those who are heavily invested in the gigantic climate change industry like all agencies on the government pay roll.

  5. Florida Mansions says:

    I wonder if the alarmists can explain this recent NCAR data. From 1940 through World War 2, to 1979, carbon dioxide levels soared, yet temperatures fell and scientist thought we were going into another Ice Age. That’s 39 years to account for.

  6. Dave says:

    Can you point to a shred of credible evidence that carbon, of itself or in combination with any other element, is the magical climate-control knob, that can somehow be tuned to a level of precision equating to 1.5 degrees globally?? And assuming that knob does exist, can you point to a shred of sensible argument that describes at what point in its ever-changing trajectory the globe’s climate should be fixed? …oh, and how that would be measured?

  7. John says:

    I haven’t seen any Chinese students joining in the Extinction Rebellion, why do you think that might be? Could it be they that they are more interested in being educated?

  8. Talford says:

    They won’t let it unravel because there are to many reputations at stake. The only way they can exit from this climate scam is to ease out of it over a generation. These kids who are encouraged to protest in City streets about government’s inaction on climate change are going to be very bitter when they become adults.

  9. Robin says:

    I don’t think anyone will be surprised by these figures because we already knew that carbon dioxide was not causing the warming of the planet. But unfortunately we have had to prove that it isn’t while they continue to scare our children.
    None of the doomsday predictions have come to pass. Alarm bells will be ringing now that this data from a reputable agency such as NCAR has been released.

  10. John Clarke says:

    The belief in the existence of the Easter Bunny has more credibility than the idea that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet.When are these people going to grow up?
    These graphs have just about put paid to the “theory”, its now time to squirm their was way out of it.

  11. Jordan says:

    The Guardian Newspaper Reports:
    Carbon emissions fall as electricity producers move away from coal.
    Global emissions down by 2% amid mild winter and reduced use of coal-fired power plants?
    This is incorrect CO2 emissions continue to increase as they have since The Little Ice Age in the early 1800 s. Last year in 2018 emissions were 400.9 ppm and in 2019 they were 402.5 ppm.
    The reduction of coal fired power stations has made no difference to the rate of emissions.

  12. John says:

    Climate change theory was not a big issue until the money came for it and now it is dominated by parasites and bludgers.
    But we now have a real crisis on our hands which is a major blow to these racketeers.

  13. isobel bayne says:

    Prince Charles is my favorite predictor of doomsday scenarios.
    “Ladies and gentlemen,” said Prince Charles, addressing foreign ministers recently. “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.”
    A little more than a decade ago, about 124 months in the past, the prince announced the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself. He revised his doomsday prediction in 2015 to 35 years. Now he’s certain that it’s 18 months. What he’ll be predicting next week is anyone’s guess.

  14. Refulgent says:

    A short message for these climate change fanatics who have been blocking traffic in peak hour. Its over. Stop the BS and get out of our way!!

  15. Laura Dana says:

    It should be noted that the MAGICC modeling is based on previous temperature modeling submitted to the IPCC much of which has been “reviewed”.
    Group polarization offers a rational explanation for extreme alarmist claims, given that the empirical scientific evidence is simply not strong enough to merit such confidence. It is likely that even intelligent, highly educated scientists have been caught in what has been called the “madness of crowds.” This beggars the question: “Is belief in global-warming science another example of the “madness of crowds”? That strange but powerful social phenomenon, first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible “authority”.
    “Could it [belief in human-caused, catastrophic global warming] indeed represent the final triumph of irrationality?”

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.