Dissent on Global Warming
The Proof and Rejection Within Evaporation
I’m not saying climate change isn’t real. The opening graph clearly shows something has changed. I’m saying the argument Global Warming caused by man in the 30’s and 70’s has so little impact it should be ignored. This graph doesn’t support Global Warming because it lacks any deviation prior to 2005.
The Cumulative graph illustrates this fact. Pan Evaporation is used to measure the evaporation of larger bodies of water. The more heat it absorbs the faster the evaporation. If excess heat existed prior to 2005 this graph would be going up earlier.
What if the data’s wrong?
If this were wrong then a second source of data wouldn’t confirm the results. If evaporation goes up we have cause to believe precipitation should go up. Fortunately Precipitation stations are a lot more plentiful than evaporation monitors over the last century.
You should be able to notice the similar massive spikes after 2010 the correlate to the Pan Evaporation spikes. It even has significant deviation after 2005 just like the Evaporation rate.
What’s actually going on then?
The clue comes from the first major spike starting in 2010 reaching a peak near 2012. It just so happens Solar Cycle 24 did something very similar. So what does it look like if we graph Sunspots with Evaporation?
It’s easy to see Solar Cycle 24 influenced the change in evaporation. They have similar peaks with a similar structure from 2010 to 2015. However, just after evaporation returns to normal, and the Suns quiets down it goes crazy again, and we do have a minor increase from 2005 to 2010 when the prior solar cycles was silent. All other solar cycles are conspicuously missing.
If Solar Wind got through to increase evaporation for solar cycle 24 it would be reasonable to believe it is possible an abnormal amount of Cosmic Wind has been getting through since it increases when the Solar Cycles subsides.
It is easy to see why someone would dissent against the “scientific consensus” of Global Warming when you look at the available data provided by NOAA’s GHCN dataset.
The Final Sin of Science: ad populum
An argument consisting of you should believe something because a lot of other people, or other group does.
Every scientist who even utters the 97 percent of scientists, or consensus, as any part of their argument should have their Doctorate in Philosophy, Phd, stripped. It is a known bad argument, and scientists should never even attempt to use it as a crutch.