*** 20th Anniversary: 2003 to 2023 ***
Search for more global warming
Discover unexpected twists in the climate story! Despite rising CO2 levels, some findings suggest cooling trends have taken place at times. Is global warming a scam? Probably not. With some evidence you can add a piece to your understanding of this controversial landscape.
Find out additional truths! Explore more global warming evidence, challenge assumptions, and reshape the conversation, and discover the complexities at play by navigating the facts. How do numbers really tell us about the future of our planet? This is the conclusion of a three-page conversation.
Reporter #1 continues:
The global warming evidence from the National Space Science and Technology Center data show lots of variation (0.845 deg C) between 1979 (when satellite measurements began) and 1997, but no significant trend.
During the extraordinary El Niño event of 1998, the temperature spiked around 0.8 degrees Celsius. After this excursion, the residual temperature was a little higher than the '79-'97 average, but since May 2002 (or maybe earlier), the temperature has been levelling off (i.e., cooling) at a remarkable - some might even say alarming - rate of 1.5 degrees C/year or more (depending on where you start fitting global warming evidence to the decline).
CO2 levels should affect the temperature in this region, but since CO2 levels have been increasing continuously for this entire period, the temperature doesn't seem to be correlated (which suggests global warming is a fraud).
There's no "hot spot" (i.e. region of high positive values) in the temperature rate-of-change that's expected (if CO2 causes climate change). There should be a "hot spot" about 10 km over the equator, but it's completely absent from the data which shows a pretty uniform value pretty close to zero. Global warming might not be happening after all.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the most well-known greenhouse gas. Calvin Consulting can help your company with GHG reporting for government requirements. You won't have to worry about it because they'll handle it.
Although NASA's GISS surface temperature data are now known to be suspect, even this global warming evidence shows that the 2008 surface temperature was less than the "best-case" scenario modeled by the IPCC and reported in its most recent reports, with CO2 levels at 2000. According to Scripps Oceanographic Institute, CO2 levels actually went up by 4.2% between 2000 and 2008. Even CO2 proponents acknowledge that surface temperatures have been going down for a while.
Further back in the GISS surface data set, temperatures have trended down (note: not just fluctuated) for about 50% of the time, while CO2 levels have increased 100% of the time. During one downward trending period, CO2 actually increased twice as much as it did during the preceding upward trending period.
1976 was a lot cooler than 1889. As an aside, today's paper says the record high temperature in Calgary [on December 7] was +16.7 deg C in 1925 and the record low was -36.7 deg C in 1972. While anecdotal, this doesn't match CO2-driven warming hypotheses.
According to ice core data (Science 12 Mar 1999, Vol. 283 no 5408 pp1712-1714), CO2 levels go up (and down) about 600 years after temperatures change, suggesting CO2 levels are a result of changing temperatures, not a cause. Following the warming of the last three glaciations, carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume. Mr. Gore seems to have missed this evidence of global warming.
Human-induced global warming believers say opposing views don't use peer-reviewed data. Only the second and last are peer-reviewed. Verifications of data sets are readily accessible for the rest.
Those IPCC model results came from IPCC reports, which are supposedly peer-reviewed, but I'm not sure what peer means in this case. The latest email scandals have made it painfully obvious that peer review is only as good as the balance of agendas among the reviewers. We shouldn't trust the peer-review process to always be totally unbiased after the "hockey-stick graph" fiasco and its aftermath. Using peer-review to counter things is just arguing from authority without addressing the real issue.
I hope we don't make policy based on the loudest voice! Considering what happened with Tiger Woods in 2010, I doubt sense and rational discussion will prevail.
There is evidence that temperatures are dropping and that this drop is not linked to the increasing CO2 levels. See this person's introductory comments - page 1 of this series - on the global warming essays page. This person explains that global warming seems a big issue facing our society today, and we need to reduce our carbon emissions to fight it.
This is page 2. See subsequent reactions to this data on page 3, the global warming argument list.
Search this site for more information now.
Evidence that global warming may not even be real
It is possible that you are unfamiliar with this evidence regarding global warming. Perhaps you are familiar with it. It will provide you with some reason to think carefully about the matter.
Do you have concerns about air pollution in your area??
Perhaps modelling air pollution will provide the answers to your question.
That is what I do on a full-time basis. Find out if it is necessary for your project.
Have your Say...
on the StuffintheAir facebook page
Other topics listed in these guides:
The Stuff in the Air Site Map
Thank you to my research and writing assistants, ChatGPT and WordTune, as well as Wombo and others for the images.
GPT-4, OpenAI's large-scale language generation model, helped generate this text. As soon as draft language is generated, the author reviews, edits, and revises it to their own liking and is responsible for the content.