How Obama’s New CO2 Rules Will Impact Global CO2 Levels & Temperature

By Elmer Beauregard

On Monday Obama came out with his new CO2 regulations increasing the amount of cuts from 30% to 32% of 2005 levels by 2030. James Hansen has come out saying these new cuts will have no effect on global CO2 levels or global temperature and for once I actually agree with him.

First off, these cuts are only for the U.S. which is only responsible for 17% of CO2 emissions annually on the other hand Obama signed a treaty with China, the world’s largest emitter of CO2, allowing them to skate and emit as much CO2 as they want for the next 30 years.

Secondly, all of mankind is only responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions annually, mother nature produces 97%.

So let’s see, with the current trajectory of global CO2 levels it looks like we will be around 428 ppm by the year 2030. With Obama’s new CO2 rules reducing 17%(U.S. output) of 3%(mankind’s output) by 32% in 2030 instead of 428 ppm global CO2 levels would be down to 427.9 ppm and that’s if we were at the 32% reduction levels today. Seeing as how you probably shouldn’t use decimal points when talking about parts per million, I rounded it back up to 428 ppm so I used the same line for CO2 levels before and after Obama’s new rules because there really isn’t any difference.


How will this effect temperature? The red line shows the global temperature trend from 1997 to July 2015 which is -0.03 Cº per century. Because there was virtually no change in CO2 levels by 2030 I kept the temp trend line the same.

Who knows what the temp will be in 2030? It really depends on what the sun does not CO2 levels as this chart also shows, world temps have stayed the same for the last almost 20 years with CO2 steadily increasing. I know that correlation doesn’t mean causation but its hard to argue for causation when there is no correlation.

I know that correlation doesn’t mean causation but its hard to argue for causation when there is no correlation.

Don’t get me wrong! I may agree with certain green groups and Dr. James Hansen about Obama’s rules not having any effect but I don’t agree with them that there needs to be even more CO2 cutbacks. Even if mankind were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow that green line would still be basically heading in that same trajectory. Instead of 428 ppm in 2030, CO2 levels would be 427 ppm if mankind no-longer existed, which is what I think Mr. Hansen and others must want.

This really isn’t about global warming anyway. This is all about shutting down America’s economy and setting up a One World Communistic Government this December in Paris like they tried in Copenhagen in 2009. Hopefully they will fail again.

10 Responses to How Obama’s New CO2 Rules Will Impact Global CO2 Levels & Temperature

  1. JMC August 8, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

    First off, China is cracking down on climate change.
    And: http://www.globalclimatescam.c
    We have 2% of the world’s land, 4.5% of the world’s people, and we’re only responsible for 17% of global carbon emissions.
    Secondly, emitting 12,000+ tons of carbon dioxide every ten seconds can change climate. Studies such as Tett et al. 2000, Lean and Rind 2008, Jones et al. 2013, and more prove that human contribution to climate change is ore than minimal.
    So let’s see, you assume that all the CO2 emissions contribute to the recent warming. Instead of the extra 3% humans add messing with the carbon cycle and causing warming, which is basically what scientists believe. So, editing your logic, Obama’s plan will reduce CO2 in 2030 to about 425 ppm. This is why w need international agreements.
    And the temperature trend from 1997 to July 2015, in degrees Celsius per century
    HadCRUT 4: 0.77
    NOAA: 1.13
    Karl(2015): 1.08
    GISTEMP: 1.24
    Berkeley: 1.04
    HadCRUT 4 krig v2: 1.18
    Karl(2015) krig: 1.28
    UAH: 1.02
    RSS: 0.33
    No, wait, that’s the trend from 2000 to 2015. Oops.
    RSS: 0.52
    So, in conclusion, warming since – oh wait, our RSS trend is from 1994 to now.
    RSS: – 0.03
    Okay, now we can see that RSS is not like the others in that it shows less warming, making it a favorite of climate change deniers. Like the one who wrote this article. And there is correlation between CO2 and temperature, you’re just looking at too short a time span in a temperature data set that shows less warming.
    And the sun is not the cause of warming.
    If mankind disappeared, climate change would stop. Natural CO2 is reabsorbed. Its called the carbon cycle. Greenhouse gasses emitted by humans cause global warming.
    And then you start with the conspiracy theories. Excuse me, need to get popcorn.
    Shutting down America’s economy! Hmmm…
    And a One World Communistic Government. So basically, a majority of the world’s scientists and political and religious figures are communists trying to force a new world order on us by regulating fossil fuels. Okay.

    • LouisD August 14, 2015 at 10:35 pm #

      Look at the math…. (see the above). Math doesn’t lie but people with nefarious agendas do. You are so very wrong.

    • Vincent Bryson October 14, 2015 at 2:50 am #

      JMC…….. just explain to me how two oxygen molecules can prevent three oxygens from combining just because the O2 happen to contain a carbon?
      I would love to learn how oxygen prevents oxygen from combining when lightning and ultraviolet light do it every day. In fact, you’re electronics do it every single moment! I am so waiting to learn about this…. (more excited than a school girl selling cookies).

      • jimharvey November 9, 2015 at 4:53 am #

        He can’t he’s a disciple in the new religion of climate change that was only created to make those “greeners” rich because they control the hydrocarbon markets. They will go down in history as nefarious as the inquisition.

    • Shaolin Rain October 14, 2015 at 10:51 am #

      actually if you go back far enough it was hotter during Roman times

    • Shaolin Rain October 14, 2015 at 10:53 am #

      and co2 isn’t the only thing that warms up the atmosphere you learn that in highschool

    • Shaolin Rain October 14, 2015 at 10:58 am #

      And if you look at the nasa models you can see that literally our plants absorb all of it before the year is over.

  2. LouisD August 14, 2015 at 9:10 pm #

    The mathematical proof that CO2 fear mongering is a complete hoax is not even difficult for the average educated person to understand. Here are the salient factz of chemistry, physics and basic arithmetic that preclude CO2 from being even modestly important I. Total GHG proprty induced €kv (reservoir of heat expressed as kenetic energy and measured as cumulative total constant level atmospheric energy.

    1. CO2 / PPM HAS A HEAT FORCING OR GHG €kv of 2.01 x the value of a PPM of H2O. Rough 2 x as powerful as water. This fact gets repeatedly and constantly by AGHG alarmists .

    2. Ignored when advertising fact #1 above is the atomic weights and actual tensor surface areas of each type of molecule. O= 16, H = 1 and C=12. Quickly one discovers that a water molecule has an AWT of about 18 and CO2 has an AWT of about 44. CO2 is therefore 244% larger than H2O. It also means that water by equal weight must be 122% as potent GHG as an equivalent weight of CO2. You can quickly see why this fact gets ignored by the AlGore worshipers.

    3. Also the reason water vapor is ignored in the attacks on GHG is the fact that H2O is naturally far more common in the atmosphere than CO2… fact about 100 × as common. So the reasoned argument that AGW alarmists proffer is that you pay attention to the big ugly face of CO2 projected on the big screen and ignore the reality of the Wizard standing there manipulating the appearance of things from behind the curtain.

    4. Per 1, 2 and 3 above, water must be about 50 x as important a GHG as CO2 even at 400 ppm ww. Water is 40,000 ppm ww.

    5. The most obvious dilution of this further is to assume that the entire value of variably stored €kv comes because of GHG. This is the single biggest deception with regards to perpetrating the hoax. The A is comprised of mostly O2 and N2, neither of which are defined as GHGs. Thus, each unbound di-bound gas composing over 96% of the raw atmosphere gets ignored by global warming alarmists as if these two gasses are completely irrelevant to the global A:€kv. Does a completely dry electric oven get hot in the absence of any GHG? Yes, o c course if does. In fact the atmosphere is warm mainly because of surface (thermal mass) tensor contact with €kv sources such as plant lief, earth and oceanic water masses. Those absorbed solar radiation, store the majority of €kv and retaliate it back into the entire body of A globally. In fact, this source of global A:€kv is about 36x as important as H2O and CO2 heat trapping mechanisms combined.

    Now anyone can do thd math. All GHGS combine to account for rough 1/3 6th of the reason the atmosphere us even warn at all. 17/18th of the structural A:€kv is simply due to transferable and convection of the same per Bernuli’s laws of heat transfer from solid and liquid thermal mass bodies to less dense gasses. Only 1/18th is attributed to water and CO2…and of that 1/18th, 98% is x water, not CO2.

    6. Therefore CO2 is 1/50/36 or just 1/100th of a reason why the atmosphere is at equalibrium at a stasis of about 59.6F Given the range of F over 4.6 billion years {from 30F to about 76F) it is fairly clear that solar radiation as absorbed by the surface and transferred back into A is considerably more important than the quantity of GHG’s in the entire A. At one point the early atmosphere was about 37% CO2 and the earth didn’t melt. In fact it was far colder then. So cold the earth was more like the mythical ice planet Hoth at the time.

    In the end however what matters is now, and the mathematics and physics says a lot of so called climate scientists are clearly selling their souls for grant money because the math says they are liars and hoaxters.

    • Vincent Bryson October 14, 2015 at 2:44 am #

      Preach it!!
      I keep telling people that is makes no freaking sense!
      They’re telling me that two oxygens prevent three oxygens from combining just because those two oxygens contain a carbon. REALLY???????
      What the helicopter?!

  3. Ryne Patrick October 16, 2015 at 1:40 am #

    Can Someone explain how they did the math for this???

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.