Advertisements
Issues & Insights

A Short List Of Facts Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want To Face

I&I Editorial

Democrats nearly had a brawl last week in California after the party’s Resolutions Committee rejected a proposed climate debate among Democratic presidential candidates. Global warming so fully occupies the thinking of some that there’s no room for information that will contradict their faith.

If they’d only open their minds they’d see:

The U.S. hasn’t warmed since 2005. America isn’t the entire world. But the alarmists gleefully point out regional heatwaves and the “hottest day on record” when cities endure summer scorchers. So let’s look at the data. The U.S. Climate Reference Network, “a sophisticated climate-observing network specifically designed and deployed for quantifying climate change on a national scale,” has found there’s been no warming in the U.S. going back to 2005.

In fact, says meteorologist Anthony Watts, the “little known data from the state-of-the-art” operation, “(which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly ‘state of the climate’ reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal.”

The data also tell us 2019’s average has been cooler than 2005’s, the first year of the data set.

Man’s carbon dioxide emissions are not burning down the Amazon. Empty-headed celebrities and activists have had quite a virtue-signaling feast tweeting photos from fires three decades ago, fires in Europe, and fires in the U.S. Yes, we’ve seen the claims that there are 80% more fires this year than last in South America, but we’ve also seen this from the New York Times:

“The majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture.”

Of course that’s a disposable detail because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Carbon dioxide increases historically lag temperature increases. “In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years,” writes author Joanne Nova. “Temperature and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point — the ‘greenhouse effect’ captured attention. But, in 1999 it became clear that carbon dioxide rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003, we had better data showing the lag was 800 ± 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat.”

Of course the climate crusaders have written at great length to tell us it’s all just a myth. This time, they say, the warming (which is in doubt) is caused by man. It just has to be. All those other warming periods, the alarmists tell us, can be explained by natural events, such as Earth’s orbit around the sun, which, incidentally, we have mentioned as one of many factors that influence climate changes.

Less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions are produced by man. Web searches turn up what seems like an endless list of stories and blog posts reporting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached or exceeded 415 parts per million. This has been almost universally treated as the tip of an imminent disaster, as man has pushed greenhouse gas emissions beyond a dangerous threshold. But has he?

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm (parts per million) per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year,” says climate scientist Ed Berry. “Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30% of today’s total.

“How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5% of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30% of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.”

Don’t like Berry’s numbers? Consider another set of figures from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which says that of the 750 gigatons of CO2 which travel through the carbon cycle every year, only 29 gigatons, or less than 4%, are produced by man.

Is it possible for such a small portion to have such a great influence? Despite what the hysterics tell us, it’s an unanswered question.

There are many other unanswered questions about climate, as well. An honest person would admit that they might remain unanswered forever. An alarmist, however, has his mind made up — and closed down.


Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right.

I & I Editorial Board

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.

111 comments

    • It’s not about that! It’s the invasive policies they want to impose and to take complete control of private sectors, and to raise our taxes under a false notion! Of course we want the earth cleaner! It’s just that anything and everything governments touch they destroy, would you want everything ran like a DMV or a post office? I know I don’t

  • For the US to stop using fossil fuels and lower our standard of living, while China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. continue to burn them is folly. Our sacrifice would not even be a drop in the bucket. There was documented climate change back in Roman times and before. Not from industry either. Enough fear mongering.

  • That list needs to be a bit longer.

    Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, decisions and policy need to be based on hard fact.

    There are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand at

    hseneker.blogspot.com

    The discussion is too long to post here but is a quick and easy read. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

  • The Inquisitor Panel on Climate Change continues to claim that political science will trump natural science. They forgot Galileo.

  • “How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5% of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30% of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide?” Then add to this fact the whole anthropogenic climate change scare is based totally on computer models for which there is NO evidence that they are reliable.

    • 95% of all climate models have exaggerated the rise in temperatures. They missed the bulls eye almost every time, most times hitting the wall.

      • I don’t know fellas, but I am quite sure the melted arctic and the raging heat waves and fires are much more convincing than computer models anyday

    • This article takes quite a laughable approach to analysis. 5% can be very important. If your budget is balanced and then you decide to spend just an extra 5% per year, and you do this for a couple hundred years, what is your financial condition? It’s not very good. The climate scientists have closed minds?!? What a joke!

      • Your financial comparison is a bad one. It includes nothing of a replenishing nature like our natural environment which constantly changes.

    • So if you don’t pay off 5% of your credit card every month the debt at the end of the year is a scare?

  • Just wondering exactly what the “normal” climate is that we’re shooting for? The 1950’s? The Midieval Warm Period? 15,000 years ago when there was a mile of ice as far south as Wisconsin? 10 million years ago when the poles were tropical? And who, exactly, decides this enviable condition? And once we get to this magical climate Nirvana, how do we prevent any further change? You know, how do we stop the change that’s been happening from the Beginning?

    Inquiring minds…

    • An excellent question sir. It is a long story with a lot of context, and I hope I am succinct saying that global warming (actually co2 levels) are thought to be dangerously high already. The fact is we really are not sure how hot we really are. If we are to get rid of particulation of sulphides and other aerosols emitted from stuff we burn it would give us more real objectives other than the the one some scientists are currently musing with. The paraprase is something like this: Life on earth lives in a cradle of manmade atmospheric frightening conditions. It may well be that we cannot stop burning because the soot (called Global Dimming) Is keeping us artificially cool. What I just sort of explained (or tried to) is very disturbing to many intelligent people. Sorry, greater than disturbing, it is frightening.
      Thanks for the inspiration

    • Ding ding ding – this is the question I’ve been asking for years. Who decides what’s right?

      • Many scientists believe that we need to keep CO2 within the warm part of the range of the last several hundred thousand years, because that’s what humans and other current species are adapted to. Looks like that puts CO2 between 260 ppm and 280 or maybe 300 ppm. But many have said that 350 ppm would not do too much damage.

        See the second graph:
        https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

  • The last point is factually incorrect. Additional CO2 stays for some years in the atmosphere. Absorption is lower than emission.

    The other two are correct.

    • As I recall from high school and college, photosynthesis removes CO2 from the air and produces oxygen and the sugars, starches and cellulose that makeup all of our food and most of our fiber and building materials. The carbon cycle is not static. It is a wonderfully dynamic and critical system that sustains all life on the plant. We need CO2 in the atmosphere and there is research that shows as CO2 levels rise the photosynthetic process becomes more effective and efficient.

      • Not entirely true. A university in California sites less nutrients in foods grown in greater concentrations of co2. More photosynthesis definitely happened with more co2, but it seems like root intakes have not caught up with photosynthesis. This may or may not cause problems with plant progeny. It is a wait and see thing. Extra co2 in the atmosphere dries soils much faster. So desication in areas were water is scarcer is more of a challenge. There is some great work that has been done by a group of botanists that is encouraging. It was a great Ted talk.

  • Adding 5% of artificial disbalance every year to a naturally balanced system, even if some natural extra balancing compensate part of that extra 5%, that ends up by creating a real disbalance .

  • I find this article frustrating like most on climate change, because it tells a story at odds with the more common reporting but isn’t going to convince anyone because no one who is not an expert will know in the end who or what to believe. Like the proverbial ships passing in the night.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there were public debates (old style, with nonpolitician, tempermentally subdued experts arguing opposing views and having a chance to respond to each other at length on the spot) so that those who aren’t experts can try to sort out who is right?

    It would be even better if the debates were divided into subtopics, so as to separate clearly issues of measurement and cause from a discussion of appropriate policy responses (and their costs and benefits).

    If anyone can point me to any such debates that have been held, I would be grateful. If they haven’t been held, why not? Are the folks who know not on speaking terms? Surely, there would be an audience (including through podcasts) given how much ink is spilled/ hot air is spewed on this topic.

    • The problem with a debate between a scientist and a liar is that the liar can make something up, and the scientist doesn’t know what the specific facts are, and is not prepared to respond.

      If it’s a presidential debate, the press can follow up the next day, so that’s good.

      • There is nothing stopping the press from following up on scientific debates, either. They just are too lazy. Unwilling to listen to actual scientists and maybe even actually learn to understand science. OR, God forbid, hire actual science writers to do the job.

  • The cool down of the US does not say anything about global warming. It can become warmer on one place and cooler on the other. There is even a possibility that the North Atlantic current will slow down or stop which will decrease the temperature in Europe because of the global warming

  • I think the governments are brain washing People with media on this climate change. The planet is doing it’s normal,it’s all propoganda to collect more taxes and to justify it, plain and simple.

    • I am sorry you think that Paola, take a walk to a beautiful place and ask an old dude how much change has happened there. And if the natural beauty has tarnished the years. If he says it hasn’t, what the heck, you had a good walk at a beautiful place.

  • this is from all the cars in calafornia .they need a law only electric cars allowed .

  • The Earth has been warming a little since the last ice age 20,000 years ago so man obviously has not been the cause nor has carbon dioxide. What fool would ruin our economy and our culture in a hopeless attempt to stop what Nature has the dictated.

    • Hey Ken, I don’t think you are looking at the big picture here. The paradigm along with government will by far will be the biggest and greatest economic boom in mankind’s history. The other plus side is that the world might be tolerable for a few or more generations. Don’t think without a push in this direction we will make another generation.

    • We don’t need fossil fuels. We need to create billions of new jobs in renewable energy. Renewable energy investments will make America great again through job creation.

    • No, it hasn’t been warming since the last glaciation. It warmed for several thousand years, and then it cooled for several thousand years, heading toward the next glaciation.

      But then we increased atmospheric CO2, and the cooling trend was overcome by warming. And this warming is already higher than many hundreds of thousands of years of natural cycles.

      • That’s an interesting hypothesis, would you please share the refereed journal report or research that supports your statements. I would like to read them. A data source would also be appreciated. Thanks.

      • I think this from wikipedia should get you started:

        “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.

        “This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.”

  • What speaks volumes, are the elitists and their actual lack of contributions to lowering their own carbon footprint and the audacity preaching to individuals to do without or be charged a carbon tax! How have elitists actually reduced their own carbon footprint?

    • I feel what you say, but I believe in a carbon tax. It might cost 10 cents a gallon but if utilized appropriately people who have suffered from extreme weather destruction could access funds collected from carbon taxes.
      Let’s face it, insurance companies are distancing themselves from troubled spots and the Fed is less than perfect for many people.
      Some not all elitists have bought into electric cars and renewable sources of energy. I hope not distant into the future we all can score in this area.

  • it’s you who are creating a false narrative by bending the numbers to your agenda. You guys should cut it out and get responsible

  • It’s interesting that the weather gurus change the record high date to the current date when the high temperatures equal this previous record date. They really shouldn’t change the record date until the temperature exceeds the record temperature.

  • Adding even less than 5% per year over 200 years without providing a mechanism for absorbing the excess will result in a huge increase. Haven’t you heard of compound interest?

  • Alarmist’s are like religous people. Take it all on faith and have zero evidence backing them up.

  • Apart from the very valid points raised here there is one aspect that is neglected. I have not seen any data that supports positive results for the billions spent since The Kyoto Protocol (1995). It’s just like throwing billions of dollar notes up in the sky and expecting it will be effective. None of these lefty activists can quantify the impact of their dreams. Why spend our money for a product/service that there’s no guarantee/assurance that it will work? Basically there’s always been/will always be climate change. The virtue signallers should be researching how we adapt, not throwing our money away (or more acurately putting it into theirs and bureaucrats pockets)

  • You tell me if we want to change something as huge as global warming (if it is true) will their be enough money to do it? Ever?

  • Obama was supposed to be the Secretary General of the UN under Clinton enforcing the Paris Climate accord. Enough said.

  • Sorry to disagree. You have presented well. The only fact I know is that life might be better biting the bullet and buying into the fact that we might bring back the good old weather by reducing carbon that will be oxidized for our selfish and warming ways.

  • Your entire argument is based on CO2 emissions and quantities. The atmosphere always had a lot of CO2, more than what the man has generated. But also know that this level goes up and down in a span of millions of years. Life on Earth was made possible only when the conditions were favorable. There is a lot of “carbon” trapped in the Earth that we want to use and some of it will come out inadvertently as the ice caps melt. Our consumption is only going up. And don’t only look at the magnitude but look at the rate of increase. It is mind-boggling. If oxygen levels on the Earth have declined, does cutting trees or burning forests make sense? Were you even thinking while you were writing this? Talking about human activity, think about why are there micro-plastics in the Sargasso Sea? Why are our lakes and rivers dirty, why is our land polluted? Look at the bigger picture and it will make sense to you.
    PS: Sea level rise must also be a myth for you I assume.

  • It is true that we do not know for certain whether human activity is really affecting the climate. But what I do know for sure is the destruction and pollution we are causing. City air full of toxic fumes. Landfills stretch for miles – land that once used to be forests or home to other wildlife. Forests being destroyed. I have seen them all first-hand. Plastic in the ocean. Waste being dumped in there. I have seen those too.
    I don’t care about climate change, but I am truly, deeply concerned about why people refuse to address the problems which they are contributing towards,
    just because they all relate to the so-called ‘climate change’ . Forests will not replenish themselves if we keep burning or chopping them down. The air itself will not get cleaner on its own if we keep pumping out these fumes. Trash will pile up. Tonnes of it. Burning them will just release even more fumes. Pollution is not just carbon emissions. Something needs to be done and the government is not doing a very good job.

  • Everybody, stop trying to lay blame on this country or that country, this political party or that one. Numbers can be distorted in either direction. As they say “Pictures are worth 1000 words” Look at pictures of the ice caps, the retreating glaciers. It dose not matter who caused it. What’s more important is How do we fix it?! I would like to point to a couple of obvious facts (Without using any statistics). Fact #1 The ice is melting … Fact #2 There are a great many people on this planet. People create pollution. Just look at your own garbage can and then multiply… Fact #3 Every Person, Every State, Every County, Every Country is to blame. As I stated above, it doesn’t matter how it happened, why it happened or who did it! Let’s (All of us) just fix it. That is if we [all] have the wisdom, and the time!

  • Refreshing to read rational thought on “climate change”. Notice how the alarmists have changed the terminology from global warming to climate change. Can’t argue that climate isn’t changing. Always has and always will.

    Joe Keating

  • Meanwhile, the Grand Solar Minimum continues. The Spaceweather.com site noted yesterday that there have only been a few small sunspots since June. We are ill prepared for the climatic disasters associated with similar periods in the past. Throw in a few, large volcanic eruptions snd crop failures may well increase significantly. With food shortages, many regions will face complete breakdowns in their societies.
    The AGW proponents have ignored the science of natural climate forcings demonstrated time and again in the past and have ill prepared us for the future.
    Trump has done the United States a favor by ignoring the AGW false prophets.

    • When the Grand Solar Minimum proves to not stop the warming, will you reconsider your beliefs? If not, what would it take?

      • Even without GSM the average earth temperature didn’t increase since 2005. Check it out. The models claim an increase but not actual data. That goes to show how goluable people are. Is easy to follow the heard than checking the facts. Before you ruin your children’s future make sure you’re not misled by our “trustworthy” politicians.

      • As your article says this is a correction not actual data. Look at the data. Corrections are made to enforce an opinion not reality.

      • Sorry, I can’t make sense out of your comment.

        The article I provided is about corrections to errors in the computation of the satellite data, which threw off the satellite temperatures from 1998-2016.
        The article you provided used bad satellite data from 2015 to dispute the surface temperature data.

        The corrected satellite data supports the surface data.

      • Your article mixed ocean temperature with selected earth stations with satellite data so that the graph they show can represent anything they want or basically nothing at all. The article I sent you shows satellite data and separately weather balloon data without any manipulation. Whatever, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It pains me to see though that you can’t go past the ideology they try to feed us and at least try to figure it out for yourself. You know the saying you can take a horse to water……

      • Oh, now I think I understand your comment. You have the misunderstanding that satellite temperatures are raw data. They are not. The satellites don’t directly measure temperature, they measure radiation. Complex computations are required to produce temperatures. Those computations were in error.

  • If you were a nicely funded climate scientist, would you report *anything* that might disrupt that lovely stream of money?

    • Scientists are very competitive. If they find something new, they want to publish it, and add to their prestige.

  • So the first fact about 6 out of 9 monthes being cooler in 2019, checked the data on the link you provided and did an average over all the data. On average since 2005 the temp is 0.7 degrees F higher. So i checked maybe the last few years are cooler… it turns out on average the last 4 years were 1.47 degrees F higher.
    The fact anout the 6 monthes is true of course but 9 monthes back is too small of a dataset, if we look at all the data we arrive at the fact that the US is getting hotter.

  • About the second fact concerning 5% of CO2 emissions are coming from humans. You have to consider the amount of CO2 the planet is absorbing. If natures CO2 emissions are 98 ppm per year and natures CO2 absorbtion is 98 ppm per year then overall it is balanced. But when you have another source of CO2 emissions with no absorbing mechanism to counter it, the CO2 in the atmosphere will rise.

    TL;DR dont forget about CO2 absorbed by nature

  • First of all, never compare “faith” or “belief” with empirical knowledge which is what science is based on. We scientists don’t discover facts on our knees, hands folded and eyes closed. We do experiments that are designed using the scientific method so the data we collect can either support our hypothesis or not. It’s a binary, eh?

    Pay attention to facts, scientists and what you see going on. No faith required.

  • The first point is irrelevant, (i) a derailed climate has many other effect than pure “warming” (think hurricanes) and (ii) given globalization, if the rest of the world suffers economically from climate changes on any significant scale, America could also be worse off.

    The second point is valid to some extent. Climate is not responsible for a significant part of the burning of the Amazon. But the fact that humans are overexploiting forests is not a good news on multiple fronts, climate change being only one of them.

    The third and fourth points are deniers’ most popular misleading arguments since they are technically true but, in context, do not lead to the conclusion that deniers want to come to. Anyone actually interested in understanding these issue will find out why with a 20 min google search, so I assume that this article is intentionally misleading.

    • I think the only good advise you give here is about the 20 min Google search, and I believe you should be the first one to follow.
      First of all we all here believe in climate change because it happened for million of years,so the first thing you got wrong is that you called us deniers. That making us part of the 97% it gets us to the point where we believe generally that antropogenic climate change is just a small part of the climate change in general. If anybody wants to know how small it is just ask your alarmists this: If all the countries in the world would commit to carbon free energy by 2050 what will be the temperature reduction by 2100 that will actually “save the world”? The answer is between 0.1 to 0.2 deg C.
      I hope is worth for all of you in the IPCC herd to return the standard of living to 1920 levels for the whole humanity. That is if there is no Grand Solar Minimum coming until then to chill us out of this hot debate.

  • Good article. We need more true information about climate change and antropogenic climate change and this is a distinction that few people make these days, however an important one.

  • 1) “The U.S. hasn’t warmed since 2005.” First, why should that matter? I think it’s because they want to catch the attention of people who think the rest of the world doesn’t matter.
    Second, climate is long-term—30 years minimum. There was a warm decade starting in 1998 in the contiguous 48 states, and the next decade was not quite as warm, but it’s still warmer than any decade of the 20th century.
    Google: EPA Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature

  • 2) “Man’s carbon dioxide emissions are not burning down the Amazon” Huh? No reputable source said that they were. There is the concern that, if enough of the rainforest is destroyed, there won’t be enough left to maintain the rain that rainforests cause.

  • 3) “Carbon dioxide increases historically lag temperature increases” They did in the past. What this really means is, warming causes increased CO2. But there is a positive feedback, in which increased CO2 also causes warming.
    This is the first time that humans caused a 40% increase in CO2 by burning fossil fuels, and that is causing warming, as climate scientists expect.

  • 4) “Less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions are produced by man.” OK. But the conclusion that this cannot cause a substantial increase in atmospheric increase is bad math. Suppose atmospheric CO2 is increased 1% annually. That’s 20% in 20 years, except that we need to add in compounding, like compound interest.
    Now, 5% of annual CO2 emissions is not the same as 5% of atmospheric CO2. We’ve actually increased CO2 from 280 ppm in 1880 to about 410 ppm today, or about a 46% increase.

    • Good point. Co2 increased by 46% while the temperature increased by 0.6 degrees C. If we extrapolate this increase to 800ppm from 400ppm we are looking at around 1.5 degrees C temperature increase towards the end of this century. This is a better prediction than IPCC models.

      • You can’t extrapolate without knowing what the final temperature for the 400 ppm is. We haven’t reached equilibrium yet.

        On the other hand, the warming effect of CO2 is not linear, it’s logarithmic.

        Both of these take us back to: We amateurs don’t know better than the scientists.

      • Glen, the temperature for 400ppm is today average temperature. As for the effect of co2 on temperature is not logarithmic, it is linear correlation. See the ice core charts for co2 and temperature. If anything as co2 increases the effect of saturation might even reduce the linearity of the correlation. Let me be clearer. In 1880 co2 was 280ppm and average temperatures was 0.6 degrees C lower than today average at 400ppm. This will likely make the average temperature at 800ppm around 1.5 degrees C higher than today’s. By the way this also is verified by sun-earth’s energy balance and the calculation of the temperature influence of co2 ratio to water vapor which makes majority of greenhouse gases. You don’t have to believe me, but if you really want to find out, the information is out there.

      • Actually the warming attributed to co2 increase since the industrial revolution is 0.6 degrees C by IPCC.
        Is true also that if we have zero antropogenic co2 emissions tomorrow it will not reduce the average temperature of the earth because co2 is not the cause of the warming. This one you got right.

      • As for CO2 having a logarithmic effect on warming, that’s a fact that deniers like to use to discount warming. But if you don’t want to believe it, that’s fine with me.

      • Remember that one time in earth history co2 was 7000ppm. If temperature would be logarithmic to co2 nothing could have lived at the time. Can you show me a scientific paper that says that temperature increases logarithmic with co2 increase? Goes to show that some people would say anything to please the alarmist herd.

      • Sounds like you don’t know what logarithmic means. Briefly, each doubling of CO2 has a smaller warming effect than the previous.

      • First of all there is no trend to show any warming since about 2002. Previously, from 1975 (when the world was speculating that another ice age is coming) until 2000 temperatures increased mostly due to solar activity (don’t forget 1999 El Nino). If you look at IPCC 1995 temperature graph you will see that in 1936 was the peak for temperature. Since then IPCC and “scientists” like Michael Mann invented the hokey stick (which by the way after 2009 hacking of their emails was exposed to be a fraud). I believe that climate is way to complex for our level of scientific expertise at this point in time to fully understand. We will eventually get better at it but not by twitching the data or by enforcing the new religion of antropogenic climate change, or by politicizing science because is dangerous. We could easily regress our civilization and return most of the population into serfs through population control by being coerced to reduce carbon footprint, sustainable development, agenda 21, co2 taxes and whatever else they can come up with because they made us believe that is for our own good and for the children.
        If you believe the government you need to stop watching CNN.

      • The world was not speculating that another ice age was coming in the 1970s. There was a magazine article about it.
        Most climate scientists already expected warming at that time, and were writing about it in scientific papers. They were right.

      • The hockey stick was never exposed as a fraud.
        Some stolen email messages embarrassed some scientists who said impolite things, and some quotes were taken out of context and misrepresented.

    • Here’s the trend of warming, including since 2002:
      https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
      https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/climate-and-climate-change/climate-change/science/temp-records

      Every decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the previous.

      Here’s the 1995 IPCC report:
      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf  
      Surface temperatures are on: pp 141-143
      It does not show 1936 being the warmest year, at all.

      Yes, there was an El Nino in 1997-1998, creating a spike. La Nina years create dips.
      Neither makes the trend. Why was 1998 warmer than every other El Nino year of the 20th century? Why have numerous years been warmer since then?

  • The decade 1992-2002 experienced more large volcanic eruptions than the previous century. NOAA took control of the database as well as the live camera feeds. I can share the database leading to NOAAs control.

  • I myself found a graph of world temperature’s taken from tree rings,it showed that it was hotter in Roman times and about 800 AD than it is now!! It must have been the chariot wheels flying around the Colliseum causing global warming then ,it had to be man causing it.Trevor Thomas.

  • https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    Historically the CO2 released naturally was naturally cancelled out…… It still roughly is. The CO2 emissions which are due to human activity (described as 5%of total CO2 emissions here).
    Imagine a bath with a tap that flows at (on average) the same speed the plug allows the water to drain…. The water level remains constant with small variations which cancel each other out.
    Now imagine increasing the tap flow by 5%….. 5% more than the plug can cope with.
    What happens?
    The bath fills up…. 5% x 20 years is 100%
    How many years until it overflows?

    • See how they did it to us? We are fighting over the influence of co2 on climate when total co2 is 0.04% (400ppm) of the gases in the atmosphere and 1% of the GHG Antropogenic co2 is 5% of the above. In the meantime we are programmed to ignore the sun influence and the solar cycles, the Malenkovich cycles (earth axis inclination, precession, and orbit transition from circular to elliptical) cloud formation and cosmic radiation influence and other that we might even not know about.
      The question is are we so dumb to believe that co2 is earth’s thermostat switch and that we can turn it up and down the way we want? First of all we can’t because that will get majority of the population to 1900 standard of living. Second, even if we are so stupid to agree to do it we will have almost no influence on the temperature a hundred years from now. All that this is, is about population control. The perversion about it all is that while the communists would force you to agree now they convince you that is good for you and you save the world at the same time.
      We use to have a joke. What’s the difference between communism and capitalism? Both they stick it to you but in capitalism you can scream.

      • Nick,
        Don’t ignore the solar cycles (they’ve been down for over 30 years).

        Don’t ignore the Milankovitch cycles (they’ve been on a very slow downward trend for thousands of years, and even if they were going up, it would be much slower than we are experiencing).

        Do check your math–atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm, which is a 46% increase.

        Do learn about the greenhouse effect. Without it, the Earth would be an ice ball. Why wouldn’t we believe that increasing CO2 46% would cause warming? Physicists know that it does.

        And what if we could do it without ruining our standard of living?

      • One at the time.
        Solar cycles are every 11 years. Another solar cycle is every 170 years or so (see Valentina Zacharova) and is related to the Maunder minimum or GSM and we are close to the next one predicted around 2025.
        Milencovich cycle is indeed a 100000 years cycle but we are presently at the top of it now and temperatures should go down from now.
        As far as co2 increase from the beginning of the industrial era by 46%, I would tell you that I don’t think you understand math that well. Let me explain. If you have $1000 and you increase your networth by $0.13 would you consider yourself richer? Because $0.13 is what 46% of co2 increase represents in the atmosphere. More than that, if you consider all this co2 is responsible for global warming (which it isn’t) the earth in the last hundred years warmed up by only 0.6 degrees C.
        I’m sure this will go way by the top of you but I took the trouble of writing it down because other people might get it.
        Please don’t bother to respond because I’m not interested in replying.

      • I already showed you that the Milankovitch peak was 8000 years ago.

        Are you saying that CO2 is necessarily insignificant because it is a small percentage of the atmosphere? No climate scientists or physicists believe that.
        It’s not the percentage that matters. It’s the number of molecules that the infrared radiation outbound from the Earth’s surface has to pass on the way out. And it’s a small percentage of miles of atmosphere, so it does matter.
        As I said, without the small percentage of CO2, even before the increase, the Earth would be an ice ball. All climate scientists know that.

      • I have a question about people in this debate: What does it mean when a person’s “facts” are shown to be mostly wrong, and they still stick to the beliefs that are purported to be based on those facts? Or are they?

      • You should be able to answer yourself that question since most of your facts are wrong. By the way talking about your facts being wrong, you posted again the link where the satellite data is mixed with land and ocean temperature and you presented it to be land temperature variation.
        If you want to talk about data, earth average temperature without the atmosphere would be about 257 degrees kelvin which is – 16 degrees C. Average earth temperature with atmosphere is about 273+16 degrees C =289 degrees kelvin. Without the sun earth temp would be 0 kelvin degrees which is the temperature of space. As you can see the atmosphere influence on climate is 32 / 289 which comes to 11% while sun’s influence is the rest of 89%. One can see that a small variation in solar activity has a much bigger impact on climate than GHG.
        Considering GHG, they represent about 30% of the atmosphere, with water vapor (clouds, humidity, snow, ice) making avg. 75% of GHG (between 66 to 85%), 15% (between 9 to 26%) is co2, and 10% the rest of GHG. If we consider roughly 15% co2 out of 32 degrees kelvin which is the total contribution of GHG to the energy balance we get that co2 is responsible of 15%x32=4.8 degrees kelvin which actually represents 4.8/289=1.66% of the total energy balance on earth vs 89% sun’s contribution. However no climate alarmist talks about the sun. All the figures in here are accepted by IPCC. Out of the 15% co2 in the atmosphere only 5% is antropogenic as illustrious alarmists conceded so if we take the math one step further, 4.8 degrees x 5%=0.022 degrees annually we increase the earth temperature annually.
        Furthermore if you consider that we do nothing in the next 100 years (which is not realistic, meaning that advances in science and technology will find more efficient sources of energy) the earth will warm by 2.2 degrees which is something humanity can coope with.

        In reality co2 is 410 ppm = 0.04% in all atmosphere and 0.04 % x 30 % of GHG=1.23% of total GHG. If we redo the calculation 1.23% out of 32 degrees warming due to GHG we get about 0.061 degrees of warming because of all existing co2. Furthermore for 5% of that being antropogenic we get a annual temperature increase of 0.003 degrees. In a hundred years we will warm by 0.3 degrees C. Definitely we can live with that. Considering that the truth might be somewhere in the middle we can expect to warm the planet around 1.5 degrees C in the next 100 years without doing anything to destroy today’s society.

      • “you posted again the link where the satellite data is mixed with land and ocean temperature and you presented it to be land temperature variation.”
        Where did I do that?

        “One can see that a small variation in solar activity has a much bigger impact on climate than GHG.”
        Source please, that says that short-term variation in solar activity is that great.

        Also, since solar cycles are short term, they do not cause long-term warming.

        Clouds, snow, and ice are not water vapor.

        Yes, the Sun is where the energy comes from. It is not what is causing the long-term warming, because it is not changing that rapidly, and it has been low for the last 30+ years.

        “However no climate alarmist talks about the sun.”
        Unless no climate scientists fall into your “climate alarmist” category, this is very false. Climate scientists study the affect of the Sun on the Earth.

        You seem to know that water vapor is the biggest GHG. You don’t seem to know that water vapor depends on temperature, so warming by other GHGs increases water vapor, amplifying the warming.

      • OK, I have a new way to look at the CO2 info:
        CO2 is 0.0415% by of the atmosphere by volume, 0.0630% by weight.
        Atmospheric pressure = 14.7 # / sq in at sea level, Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).
        Density of CO2 at STP: 1.98 kg/m3 = .00007138 # /in3

        From this, I compute that if we were able to separate out the CO2 from the atmosphere, it would make a layer 10.8 feet thick at STP.
        So that is a different way to visualize how much CO2 there is to catch some of the IR radiation from the surface.

        I did the calculations myself, so you’re welcome to check them.

  • See Startalks ( they say that from 2015 ( lauched sattelite which measures balance of heat of (income and outcome ) … trouble are clouds which are due to sun emision of particles : said on BBC so don’t confirm IPCC ( suns light emission is variable 0.1%!( not considered magnetic sun spots changes !

Advertisements

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

If you like what you see, feel free to leave a donation. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Just click on the Tip Jar above. It will take you to a PayPal donations page. Your contributions will help us defray the cost of running this site. Thank you!

Subscribe to Issues & Insights via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to Issues & Insights and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,504 other subscribers

Advertisements

Copyright © Issues & Insights

%d bloggers like this: