One of the central criticisms aimed at the infamous Great Global Warming Swindle, for example, is precisely that it failed to entertain the idea that the
post-1940 decline in global temperatures was the result of increases in sulphurous emissions that masked the forcing effect of rising atmospheric CO2.
These assertions include: — Supposed «out of date» findings from the IPCC and USCCP reports —
Supposed decline in global temperature (already debunked dozens of times)-- Supposed lack of endangerment from anthropogenic global warming imputed from past improvements in measures of U.S. health and welfare
It's obvious to those whose eyes are open that without continued greenhouse - gas warming to offset these natural factors, we would have seen a
notable decline in global temperature «since 1998.»
Global sea level underwent a statistically robust fall of 8 ± 8 cm (95 % probability interval) over 1000 - 1400 CE, coincident with
a decline in global temperature of ~ 0.2 °C.
For example, Angliss gets into the weeds on the new famous «hide the decline» statement, which Fox News picked up as meaning «hide
the decline in all global temperatures».
Phil Jones» email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to «hide
the decline in global temperatures».
We show that this occurs in spite of a decline in radiative forcing that exceeds the decline in ocean heat uptake — a circumstance that would otherwise be expected to lead to
a decline in global temperature when using the simple energy balance model described in the post.
The Himalaya controversy followed another tempest — the disclosure of e-mails that suggested that leading global warming scientists in the U.K. and the U.S. had conspired to hide
a decline in global temperatures.