A global warming primer

The climate alarmists usually try to take the high moral ground when they claim that reducing CO₂ will Save the Planet, but the more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are Helping All Living Things on the planet and of course that makes you a better person.

Yet governments now tell us CO₂ is a pollutant! When global warming failed to occur and people were getting bored, the US Environment Protection Agency declared CO₂ was a pollutant. There is absolutely no evidence for this. For much life on the planet we are in a CO₂ –poor environment.

Green propaganda films show chimneys emitting black clouds, and cooling towers belching white clouds. These are soot and water (distilled, pure water!), but the subliminal message is that this is pollution. Remember CO₂ is invisible. The propaganda is pure lies, and stooping to such a level suggests the alarmists cannot make a case with true science.

The Sun

The sun is the major control of climate, but not simply by irradiation, and not by irradiation modified by greenhouse gases. Nobody can deny that climate varies, so what causes variation in energy gained from the sun?

Milankovitch cycles result from changes in the distance to the sun, but more important are sun spots and solar cycles. There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Periods of low sunspots go with colder climate. The probable mechanism was discovered by Svensmark. During periods of low solar activity (solar minima), more cosmic rays reach Earth, potentially creating ultra-small aerosol particles which are precursors to cloud condensation nuclei. This causesmore low level cloud formation, more low level clouds means more sunlight reflected back into space, which in turn means less heating of the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

Archibald pointed out that the longer a solar cycle lasts, the cooler the following solar cycle will be. Solar cycles are normally 11 years long, but solar cycle 23 lasted 12.5years. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Solar Cycle 23 seems to resemble most closely Solar Cycle 4, and if the trend continues we should be heading for a Dalton Minimum. Ken Schatten, the solar physicist with the best track record in predicting solar cycles, suggests we could be heading for a Maunder Minimum. There is also a De Vries cycle of 210 years, and the last one was 201 years ago, so the next one is due. If the two cycles are superimposed it will be even colder.

MODELS, PREDICTIONS AND PROJECTIONS

Many think that the political decisions concerning climate are based on scientific predictions. This is quite untrue: what the politicians get are projections based on models. What is the difference, and why is it never made clear?

Models depend on assumptions, what you put in (data), the program, and conclusions drawn from the output.

The UN's main adviser, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses adjusted data for the input (mostly from the discredited Climate Research Unit), and their computer models and codes remain secret – not a scientific procedure. Remember how the IPCC gets a runaway greenhouse effect? They apply an enormous amount of compounding water vapour feedback and IPCC models take one degree of heating and turn it into 6.4 degrees.

They do not give predictions of the future, but only computer projections. Furthermore they do not take responsibility for the alarm they generate.

The Australian CSIRO, for example, has legal disclaimers for their scary predictions:

This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood.

Accordingly, no responsibility is accepted by the CSIRO for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.

Any allegedly scientific document that needs a legal disclaimer is clearly not science. And if CSIRO is not giving advice for which it takes responsibility they may as well be disbanded.

Australian government ministers (and their advisers) claim that their decisions are based on a scientific consensus but especially the advice of IPCC and CSIRO. But both of these organisations deny making predictions, and refuse to be responsible for their computer's projections. Computers are still not clever enough to take responsibility, so presumably it is the government, through lack of due diligence, that is responsible for the expensive and ineffective actions it is now implementing to "combat" the alleged "human-induced dangerous Global Warming" The argument can be extended to all the other governments in the world that are impoverishing their nations by imposing extravagant policies based on global warming.