Much money has been spent in recent years studying climate change. We are oft bombarded with gloom and doom courtesy of these studies. Most studies I’ve read blame rapidly changing temperatures caused by man. Carbon dioxide is responsible for whatever disaster they happen to be promoting.
Suppose, just suppose, that the climate hasn’t been changing as rapidly as advertised.
Let’s look at some temperature data. I’d like to state up front that I think all land based temperature data is wild ass guess data. The Earth’s temperature is simply too difficult to calculate. Most thermometers are located in the developed world. Much of Africa is sparsely covered and coverage in Antarctica is spectacularly sparse, only a single location for then entire continent. World temperature wild ass guessing is a virtual certainty. That said, lets begin with some NASA data that relies on weather stations and ocean buoys:
Yep, this chart shows a shift in world temperatures in the 1990’s. But if the chart had been started a year later in 1997 instead of 1996, then there would be no real change. Yep, no net change in climate since 1997. The last 17 years have been surprisingly stable. More stable than at any time in the last 170 years as this East Anglia University data shows:
Natural variation; here, there, everywhere. I particularly like the changes in the 1870’s and 1880’s. Ocean temperature data stunk back then (it’s not that great today) so we know the data used to prepare this graph is jam packed full of guesses.
Climate change before 1950 is presumed to be natural climate variation by the same experts that are trying to scare us now. My personal favorite, the stretch from 1907 to 1943. It seems eerily similar to the data from 1976 to 1998.
Don’t like the NASA or East Anglia Data? Let’s look at some Satellite Data. Here’s the University of Alabama at Hunstsville (UAH) Satellite global data for the lower atmosphere:
Fairly stable weather until Mt. Pinatubo erupted, then rapid cooling followed by rapid warming. And still no net change since the second half of1997.
One key premise of man caused global climate change states that the climate will change more at the poles than in the tropics. It certainly has been true in the Arctic. I’d argue that soot and pollution from Asia (mostly) are partly to blame. Recent studies support this notion as does Satellite data from Antarctica. If the Arctic is changing due to additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then Antarctica should change too…. and in a similar way.
Take a look at the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) Satellite data for Antarcita.
Almost flat line. Now look at the Arctic Data also courtesy of RSS.
No change in Antarctica, wild change in the Arctic. Ice core data supports the notion that the Antarctic has not been warming for hundreds of years. Hmmm.
Most studies I’ve seen, including most IPCC handiwork, start with observed changes in the world around them. This change is then attributed to man produced greenhouse gases which is supported by computer models that assumed carbon was important. Round and round we go. Make an assumption and build a model based upon that assumption and then use that model as proof of the assumption….just a tad circular.
If carbon dioxide is the primary driver of climate change, the data at both poles should be similar. The data has been diverging for the entire 36 year history of Satellite Data.
Maybe, just maybe, something else is going on.