US Summers Are Getting Much Cooler

Reblogged from Tony Hellers RealClimate Science:


Every single metric shows that summer maximum temperatures are cooling in the US, and that heatwaves are becoming shorter, less intense and covering a smaller area.

Climate scientists say the exact opposite of the data, because they are consultants being paid to push the global warming scam.

Which comes first, rise in global CO2 or rise in global temperature?

It is the contention of some (AGW proponents) that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of global warming. Alternatively, natural cycles control the temperature and hence solution and exsolution of carbon dioxide into and out of the ocean, thereby controlling the atmospheric CO2 content.

To my knowledge, AGW proponents have yet to present any compelling physical evidence to support their contention. However, the alternative hypothesis has much supporting physical evidence. The latest is a new paper published in Global and Planetary Change:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim from several Norwegian Universities.

The paper abstract reads:

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions.

Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

The authors also say, “Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”


It seems that AGW (human caused warming) proponents have a cause and effect problem. The figure below is from the cited paper. In that figure, green represents changes in CO2, blue represents change in sea surface temperature, and red is the change in global surface temperature (HADCRUT3).


Recently, Dr. S. Fred Singer wrote an editorial which said in part:

“The science of climate change is not just of academic interest, but has been leading to policies for large-scale changes in energy use and supply — with important economic consequences. The burden of proof for AGW therefore falls on those who call for such policies. They must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that human activities are causing global warming, that a future warming will produce significant economic and ecological damage, and that it would be more cost-effective to mitigate now rather than to adapt later. They must also be ready to respond to any critique of the underlying science.”

Dr. Singer also poses some questions for AGW supporters:

**Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?

**Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.

**Why is there a step increase (temperature “jump”) in 1976-77 — and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.

**Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?

**And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century — in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as “evidence” for AGW?

I have an additional question. If CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas and the major driver of global temperature as alleged, why does it stop rising? According to AGW hypothesis, CO2 should cause temperature to rise which would produce more water vapor (a strong greenhouse gas), and lead to an enhanced or runaway greenhouse effect which would cause even more carbon dioxide to exsolve from the ocean. But something seems to curtail each rise in carbon dioxide. The cited paper suggests that both temperature and atmospheric CO2 content is controlled by sun-driven decadal ocean cycle oscillations.  If there is some influence from human carbon dioxide emissions, it is too small to be detected in the study.

For some additional perspective, I show a table below, constructed by a geologist several years ago, which shows the relative contributions to the greenhouse effect.  That estimate concludes that total human contribution is just 0.28%.  If that estimate is anywhere near reality, it helps explain why the researchers in the first paper cited above found “changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

Human contribution to greenhouse effect

See also:

US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling says Anthony Watts

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

NOAA temperature record “adjustments” could account for almost all “warming” since 1973

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

The Case Against the IPCC and Proponents of Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming

Global cooling since 1990?

If climate scientists can be believed (an to some that is a big if) the global mean temperature has dropped 1°C since 1990. That occurred even with ever increasing carbon dioxide emissions which climate alarmists claim is the major cause of recent global warming (in spite of the lack of supporting physical evidence).

Pierre Gosselin, a graduate of the University of Arizona, resident of Germany, and proprietor of the blog NoTricksZone, translates German scientific papers into English and offers comments.

Gosselin documents scientific literature from ca. 1990 which claims that the global mean temperature then was 15.5°C.

Gosselin also points out that German scientific literature of 2012 claims the global mean temperature is now 14.5°C. Even the IPCC’s 4th assessment report uses the 14.5°C figure while at the same time claiming the global temperature has risen by half a degree.

So, does anybody really know what the mean global temperature actually is?

Read Gosselin’s full article here.

I should point out that satellite measurements of global temperature show no net warming since 1998 (see here).

Whether it’s 14.5°C or 15.5°C, that’s still much cooler than the “normal” of around 22°C of the last 250 million years (see here).

See also:

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

July 2012 not hottest according to NOAA data

US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling says Anthony Watts

Urban heat island effect on temperatures, a tale of two cities

Most US maximum temperature records set in the 1930s

Berkeley Temperature record update2 the longer record

In my previous two posts on the Berkeley temperature record (here and here) there was discussion of time intervals and how they influenced perceptions of temperature change.

Berkley2-300x236The first graph here is what the Berkeley team released to the press. It covers the period 1800 to 2006.  The expanded Y- axis scale gives the impression of a significant recent rise in temperature.

If one looks, however, at a longer record the perception is different.  The second graph is the Central England Temperature record (CET), as far as I know, the longest  continuous instrumental record in existence. It covers the period 1659 to 2009.  Also plotted with the temperatures are carbon dioxide emissions (black line).


The impression from CET is that the temperature has risen steadily and modestly as the planet warmed up from the so-called Little Ice Age which reached its coldest around 1607.  We see within this record shorter intervals of more rapid warming and cooling.  We also see that the rapid rise of carbon dioxide emissions has had no apparent effect.

More discussion and more long temperature records from Europe can be found in this post:

A short anthology of changing climate

And for some additional perspective, the graph below, based on proxy data, shows the relative temperature for the past 10,000 years.


See also:

A Perspective on Climate Change a tutorial

Berkeley temperature study update: colleague says claim was huge mistake

Last week I wrote about Dr. Richard Muller’s BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) program and its depiction by the press in the post Press punked by Berkeley temperature study.

Now, another voice has come forward.  The British paper Mail Online says that “Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.”  (See article here.)  Dr. Curry is a member of the BEST team and co-author of the four papers Dr. Muller released.

The Mail article goes on:

“In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.”

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no leveling off’.

See Dr. Curry’s version of the Mail interview on her blog here.

The Mail Online article included the graph below.  The top panel shows the temperature data, which stopped in 2006, as published by Dr. Muller.  The bottom panel shows the last ten years of BEST data including 2011 so far.  The bottom panel shows a graph with level temperatures in spite of continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.


Dr. Curry, on her blog, says of the graph, “I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph ‘hides the decline.’”

The phrase “hide the decline” refers to a now infamous part of the Climategate emails where we learned that in the construction of the Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, tree ring proxy temperature data that had been used for most of the graph started to decline. It  was therefore truncated and surface temperature data was substituted in order to hide the decline and make it appear that warming was accelerating.

Dr. Curry adds in her criticism of the BEST graph, “There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate.  Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.”

Meteorologist Anthony Watts says on his blog, referring to the flatness of the temperature during the last ten years versus what was depicted on the BEST graph:

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering .. almost 200 years… with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

Watts also comments on how Muller handled the press and peer-review in the post: The BEST whopper ever.

To get the full story to date, read my last post, the Mail article, and Dr. Curry’s article, all linked above.  There are additional links of interest within Dr. Curry’s post.

I will reiterate that the BEST study dealt with only (rather unreliable) surface temperature data and does not attribute causes to temperature change.

For my perspective on climate change see:

A Perspective on Climate Change a tutorial

Press punked by Berkeley temperature study

There is currently a raging controversy in the media about Dr. Richard Muller’s BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) program. One point the press seems to miss is the distinction between  whether and how much warming there may have been, versus the cause of temperature change.

The Berkeley group, having noted all the charges of data manipulation in temperature databases owned by governments, both British and American, decided to redo all the temperature records.  Everyone was anxious about how they would handle the data.

The current controversy may have been precipitated by Muller, himself, with a Wall Street Journal article titled “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism.”

In the WSJ article Muller writes:

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy’s Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, “most” of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

 We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo’s temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can’t be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction.

But then he writes:

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

And the press frenzy began.

Much of the controversy revolves around four papers Muller released prior to formal peer-review and publication (They are still unpublished formally).  Many scientists take exception to the methodology of the BEST study, particularly how Muller averaged station temperatures, dealt with the urban heat island effect, and stated the uncertainty.  Also part of the controversy is how the data are depicted on graphs in the press.  Below are two graphs showing identical data, but the difference in the vertical temperature scale makes one look more alarming than the other:


Berkley2-300x236Add to that, the land surface temperature record does not agree with the satellite record, nor is there good agreement with sea surface temperature record..  BEST uses only land-based temperature data and ignores sea surface temperature data.

Steve McIntyre, proprietor of Climate Audit noticed “BEST’s estimate of the size of the temperature increase since the start of the 19th century is much larger than previous estimates….The decade of the 1810s is shown in their estimates as being nearly 2 degrees colder than the present….It’s also interesting to interpret these results from the context of ‘dangerous climate change’, defined by the UN as 2 deg C. Under BEST’s calculations, we’ve already experienced nearly 2 deg C of climate change since the early 19th century.”  McIntyre could not replicate some of Muller’s results using raw station data.

The press, portraying Muller as a former skeptic who got religion, ran with the WSJ headline.  See, for example, an editorial by Eugene Robinson.  Robinson’s characterization of the BEST study is that it provides evidence against climate skeptics and confirms the IPCC scary scenario projections.  But ultra warming alarmist site RealClimate.org  says the BEST study is not a big deal:

Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said “Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.”

The whole thing boils down to what Muller said, “The temperature-station quality is largely awful.”  That means the surface temperature data is inadequate to come to any valid conclusions.  BEST measured a larger subset of the surface temperature record than some other researchers. BEST merged and “filtered” the data.  Various methods of massaging data lead to different conclusions, none of which may be close to reality.  The science is still not settled and the BEST study, despite its good intentions, provides nothing new.

See another analysis of BEST data here.

Arctic Temperatures: Not So Hot

A new study claims that Arctic temperatures have risen 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last decade, bringing to an end a 2000-year cooling trend. The study authors claims thathuman CO2 emissionsare the cause.


The authors claim: “Our reconstruction shows that the last half-century was the warmest of the last 2,000 years. Not only was it the warmest, but it reversed the long-term, millennial-scale trend toward cooler temperatures. The cooling coincided with the slow and well-known cycle in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and it should have continued through the 20th century.” “The evidence was found by generating a 2,000-year-long reconstruction of Arctic summer temperature using natural archives of climate change from tree rings, glacier ice and mostly from lake sediments from across the Arctic, a region that responds sensitively to global changes.”

Why did they use proxy data for the last 100 years when they could have just looked at thermometer records? Oh, but thermometry shows that is was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s.

The new study presents a curve which is reminiscent of the thoroughly debunked “Hockey Stick” of Michael Mann. The new proxy reconstruction fails to show the well-documented Medieval Warm period of 1,200 yeas ago when temperatures were higher than now. It appears that authors of the new study are using the same statistical malfeasance and cherry-picking of data that were used for the old hockey stick.

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discusses the new study. “The problem with these sorts of studies is that no class of proxy (tree ring, ice core isotopes) is unambiguously correlated to temperature and, over and over again, authors pick proxies that confirm their bias and discard proxies that do not.”

Records from the Danish Meteorological Institute show no warming since 1958 and that the 2009 temperature variation is almost identical to 1958. DMI says that the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now.

A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean’s surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the sub-polar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed. This pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)

A 2008 study by Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, found that “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia.”

Besides the controversy over temperatures, there is also media attention given to Arctic sea ice extent. For instance, news media made much of the fact that during the summer of 2007, Northern Hemisphere sea ice area was at a historic minimum (2.92 million sq. km). What was little reported, however, was that in 2007, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent broke the previous maximum record of 16.03 million sq. km and reached 16.26 million sq. km. (August, 2007). [Source: The Cryosphere Today, a publication of The Polar Research Group, University of Illinois]

To put things in further perspective, consider these reports:

“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated.”

“2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74 and 80 N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

These paragraphs, however, are not the latest scare story from the greenhouse industry, but extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, written in 1817 (Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153).

 When this report was written, 192 years ago, the planet was in the midst of the Little Ice Age. How could the ice disappear in a Little Ice Age?

There is also the following story:


“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway .
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are being found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
 This is from an AP story which appeared in the Washington Post, November 2, 1922.

Could it be that carbon dioxide and global warming have nothing to do with it? Well, yes.

A study conducted by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says unusual winds caused the 2007 Arctic minimum. Their press release says:

“Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”

“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century.”

The fact that a 192-year-old report on Arctic ice is very similar to one today lends credence to the contention that changes in ice cover are natural cyclic phenomena and not due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  AccuWeather says the changes in wind may be due to changes in the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which are large atmospheric circulations that have major impacts on the weather in certain parts of the world.

Perhaps reporters should do some investigation so they can report all of the news and put things in perspective. Ah, but only sensational headlines sell papers.

Al Gore’s Favorite Graph

In his presentations on global warming, profiteering, prophet Al Gore likes to use a graph similar to the one below from Vostok, Antarctica, ice core to show apparent correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide. When pressed about cause and effect, Gore says the relationship is “complex.”


The scientists working on the Vostok ice core report that temperature changes PRECEDE changes in CO2 concentration by about 800- to 1,300 years. This should not be surprising because temperature has great influence on CO2 solubility in the ocean. Notice that the temperature cycles occur in approximately 100,000 (±20,000)-year intervals. This coincides with the variation in the precession of the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun. Can you think of anything that would make CO2 cycle this way if it were the driver rather than temperature? And what would stop the rise of CO2 if it were the controlling variable?

You may have heard climate alarmists say something like this: “There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any time during the past 650,000 years, based on analyses of the chemical composition of air bubbles entrapped in Antarctic ice over that time.”

That contention relies on an unproven assumption. The assumption is that entrapped bubbles are an accurate measure of the ancient atmosphere. In fact, there is good evidence that, with increasing pressure and time, the bubbles undergo chemical and physical changes which deplete CO2, so it is unlikely that they contain true ancient atmospheric compositions. Furthermore, reconstructions based on ice core bubble composition data disagree with reconstructions from most other proxies.


Jaworowski,Z., Segalstad,T.V. andHisdal,V.,1992, Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: A critical review., Meddelelser 119, Norsk Ploarinstitutt, Oslo.

Mudelsee, M, 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka, Quaternary Science Reviews 20:583-589.

Petit, J.R., et al., 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Siegenthaler, U. Et al., 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317.

Human-Induced Warming in Tucson?

090605 Wry Heat
We’ve all seen headlines that say, in effect, it was the warmest year since….. it was cooler. Is it really getting warmer or is at least some of the temperature rise artificially induced because of the places we put our thermometers?
In the U.S. there are 1,221 stations in the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN); these are the official stations measuring temperature.
One of those stations occurs on the University of Arizona campus. Its temperature record certainly shows warming, see figure below.



Your Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter

We have all heard scary scenarios about global warming. We therefore propose to limit our carbon dioxide emissions, assuming that they are responsible for the warming. So, the central question is: How much carbon dioxide does it take to theoretically raise global temperatures by 1 degree C?

That number can be gleaned from global emissions reports and IPCC scenarios.

Based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (DOE) we see that it takes about 15,700 million metric tonnes (mmt) of CO2 to raise atmospheric concentration by 1 part per million by volume (ppmv).

In 2000, mean atmospheric CO2 concentration was 368 ppmv (NOAA global index).

The “let’s do nothing” scenario of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) predicts CO2 concentration will rise to 836 ppmv by 2100– a 468 ppmv rise. In the same scenario, the IPCC predicts a temperature rise of 3.4 degrees C. Therefore, under that assumption, to get a 1 degree C temperature rise requires a 140 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration (468/3.4 =140).

So, simple arithmetic shows that to get a 1 degree C temperature rise requires carbon dioxide emissions of 2,198,000 mmt. (15,700 mmt/ppmv x 140 ppmv/ C = 2,198,000 mmt of CO2 ). That’s 2 million million tonnes of CO2.

According to the EPA, total human CO2 emissions in the U.S., from all sources, including power plants, industry, automobiles etc. were 6,103 million metric tonnes in 2007. If we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C. (6,103/2,000,000 = 0.003 C.)

You can do your part; just stop driving your car. The average family car puts out 5.5 tons of CO2 annually and is theoretically responsible for a temperature rise of 0.00000000000311ºC, three one-hundred-billionths of a degree. You can be so proud.

The calculation above ignores the fact that 98.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf So that actual emissions would have to be 146 million million tonnes to get a 1 C temperature rise, i.e., if we stopped all U.S. emissions it would really prevent a temperature rise of just 0.00004 C. But it will take even more than that because the effect of CO2 concentration is logarithmic, not linear as assumed above.

Now do you see how stupid Cap & Trades schemes are? Why are we proposing to spend billions or even trillions of dollars on a temperature change we can’t even measure?

Bottom Line:

Human carbon dioxide emissions do not produce a significant change in temperature. We should not be wasting resources trying to control them. If you think differently, then provide some physical evidence to the contrary. IPCC climate models don’t count because they are just speculative computer games.


See similar calculations from Paul Knappenberger of CATO: