Open Letter

Addendum*

Very few people who read this will know who I am or what type of person I am. I’ve had a successful engineering career, I believe I’m well liked and I’ve conducted my life honestly. I am not normally outspoken but I’ve had a long time to look at “Global Warming” and I just felt that I need to add my voice to the skeptic side of the discussion for the sake of my children and grandchildren (and yours).

As a Professional Engineer, I am charged with an ethical responsibility to fairly design and report on the infrastructure work we do, so as to ensure the public are kept safe and projects are reasonably designed within the project budget and performance objectives. I bring this thinking to the “Global Warming” issue. I am concerned that there are significant data discrepancies in many aspects of human-made “Global Warming” claims, and that the proposed solutions will result in a tremendous cost burden for our children, with little benefit to society, the environment or a beneficial effect on climate change. I am also concerned that the public debate is being silenced through name calling and intimidation. For our children, we must encourage free inquiry in science. Otherwise we are doomed to return to the days of believing in magic and medieval witch burning.

The purpose of this document is to lay out actual data (NOT computer models and unverified theories) and let the reader make their own decision. A quick summary of the facts (based on July/August 2018 data) is laid out below.

1. There is no empirical data showing that CO₂ has been or ever will be one of the main drivers of climate change.
2. Early August Arctic sea ice extent is only 8.6% below the 1981-2010 lower interdecile range, but Arctic sea ice volume (which is more representative than the areal extent) is actually well above average at the upper end of the normal range.
3. Antarctic sea ice extent is within the 1981-2010 normal range.
4. Both Antarctica (for several decades) and Greenland (more recently) are adding significant ice volumes to their ice caps (details in the discussion).
5. Sea levels have been rising steadily (with small fluctuations) since the mid 18^th century with no correlation to CO₂ concentrations.
6. Northern Hemisphere snow extent (2017-18) had risen above one standard deviation based on the 1998-2011 period (not a big deal) but the Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) in early April was actually more than 30% higher than the typical range with significantly more snowfall over the remaining spring snowfall season.
7. The average global temperature anomaly for August 2018 was +0.19 °C (based on the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellite data). Apart from el Nino temperature spikes, the temperature is currently at the same levels we experienced from 2002 – 2007. Other temperature data sets are discussed later.
8. If we assume that every country adheres to their 2030 commitments from the 2015 Paris Accord the temperature reduction by 2100 will only be 0.048 °C using the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) computer models. Canada’s contribution to the temperature reduction (based on our 1.5 – 2.0 % CO₂ global emission contribution) will only be 0.00072 – 0.00096 °C. Definitely not worth the tens of billions of Canadian dollars per year of wasted capital  and lost GDP. Or the trillions of dollars globally.

Forward Discussion

Based on my look at the data (and I’ve looked at a lot), there is no empirical data on any time scale that shows that CO₂ is a significant climate driver. Conversely, there is an abundance of data that shows that the sun directly or indirectly (i.e.: through ocean cycles, modulating cloud cover, etc.) has a significant effect on the earth’s climate on many different time scales. As an engineer, I wasn’t happy with just looking at someone else’s interpretation. So I opted to get the data from NASA, NOAA, Universities, Scientific Institutions, etc. and review it myself. Charts with downloaded data can be identified by the following text reference (©-RJD-2018). The reader can simply review the data I compiled or go get the data themselves. And I encourage everyone to get the data and provide me/everyone with any empirical data showing that CO₂ is a significant climate driver. I am more than open to changing my opinion, but that won’t happen without real data. Computer models and unsubstantiated theories will not be enough.

I don’t pretend that I can evaluate every aspect of the climate realm, because no one can. But I can evaluate the relationships between the primary parameters (temperature, CO₂ and solar activity). And I can evaluate the effectiveness of using computer models to forecast future temperatures. Very simply, the climate cannot be accurately modelled by a computer because it is a non-linear chaotic system that has hundreds of input parameters (not just CO₂ which is a small component). At best, it is an estimate that is only as valid as the vast number of assumptions that are fed into the computer. The problem with the “Global Warming” approach to climate forecasting is that they use the computer models as proof of a coming catastrophic warming. Computer models unfortunately prove nothing and to date have totally missed their projections (which will be discussed later). Just critically read every article on “Global Warming” and its consequences and chances are you’ll see a reference to the warming predicted by these unvalidated models and/or you’ll see a lot of words like could, should, might, may, etc.

A similar article could be written that surmises the consequences of the cooling that will accompany the coming “Grand Solar Minimum (GSM)”. And make no mistake, the cooling will be a lot more devastating than any heating caused by rising CO2. A report out of Britain (April 7th, 2018, Daily Star), showed that 20,275 more people than average died from cold between December and March of this year (with more than double that expected by the end of the winter). Heat or Eat deaths have become a huge problem in Britain (and Europe) where the renewable energy agenda has led to huge and for the most vulnerable, unaffordable increases in energy prices. Unfortunately those numbers will be small compared to the losses we’ll see over the next few years. The growing seasons look like they are shortening and they will continue to shorten as we move deeper into the GSM. The crop losses will be devastating and lead to astronomically high food prices and mass starvation consistent with other major solar minimums.

In reality, warming due to CO₂ increases will temper the cooling effects of the GSM and we should be thankful for that. In fact, I hope that the approximately 1 °C increase we’ve experienced since the 1850’s (the depths of the Little Ice Age) is due entirely to CO₂. Unfortunately, based on a review of CO₂ and solar activity, I (and many other climate scientists) believe that the net benefit of CO₂ is only 0.4 – 0.5 °C. That will help but we’re still in for some rough years over the short to medium term. If the crowd that believes that CO₂’s capacity to warm the atmosphere reached saturation around 350 ppm (i.e.: CO₂ is no longer contributing any meaningful atmospheric heating), then we are in for a long, cold couple of decades.

So you are more than welcome to dismiss my views (as outlined above) but to be fair, please review my rationale for those views before you actually dismiss them. But if you outright dismiss my views, then you also have to dismiss the views of such “prominent climate scientists” as Bill Nye, David Suzuki, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Neil Young, Barack Obama, etc. For the record, I do have a peer reviewed, published paper that reviews one of the earliest CO₂ sequestration projects implemented in Canada (in 1995). I was the project lead for Co-Enerco Resources’ acid gas disposal system (80% CO₂, 20% H₂S) in the Zama field in northern Alberta. The rest of the discussion is focussed on the data (with some interpretation/opinion thrown in on my part). I don’t get into any detailed scientific discussions (i.e.: you don’t need a science background to understand this information).

I Fundamentally Agree With Many Global Warming Statements

There are some very simple reasons that I cannot and will not be able to buy into the “Global Warming” hysteria that seems to have overtaken our political establishment. However, before I move ahead with my discussion I would like to point out that there are many aspects of the “Global Warming” argument with which I fundamentally agree. To be clear, my agreement with these statements is based on my confidence in the evidence derived from the data I have reviewed.

1. I agree that climate changes (the planet has warmed and cooled many times on many different time scales and with more dramatic magnitudes than our current warming),
2. I agree that the planet has warmed since the late 1800’s (roughly 0.9 °C),
3. I agree that CO₂ has been rising steadily and more quickly since the 1950’s,
4. I agree that a significant percentage of the recent CO₂ increase is manmade,
5. I agree that atmospheric CO₂ increases can increase the global temperature,
6. I agree that CO₂ increases have contributed to a significant portion (probably 40 – 50%) of the 0.9 °C temperature increase over the last 150 years,
7. I agree that CO₂ is absolutely vital to all life on this planet and we are currently living in a period that is close to plant starvation levels (plants die off at 150 ppm, we were at a low of 185 ppm just 15,000 years ago and are only at 410 ppm currently and greenhouses routinely increase their CO₂ levels to 1,200 – 1,500 ppm to encourage plant growth).

However, I do not agree with the human caused catastrophic warming mantra that is continually shoved in society’s face. And the reason for that is simple. The “exaggerated” future warming is based on computer models that have consistently failed to predict the climate responses correctly over the last few decades. The model failures are not surprising since they are based on unproven theories and there is virtually no empirical data in the historical records (on any time scale) that suggest CO₂ is a significant driver of climate change. Although CO₂ can affect temperature over very short periods of time such as the 1970 – 2000 period, the underlying natural variations (solar activity, ocean cycles, etc.) generally override the CO₂ effects. More detail is provided later in the discussion.

I’ll start my discussion by reviewing the available global temperature and atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on a variety of time scales. For the record, CO₂ does not appear to be driving climate change on any of the available data, which will be readily apparent.

Temperatures and Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations – Past 600 Million Years

The first time scale we’ll look at covers the last 600 million years (Figure 1). The CO₂ levels are obviously not driving global temperatures at this time scale. Global temperatures have actually averaged roughly 10 °C above our current temperatures for 80% of the last 550 million years. We are currently living through one of the major/regular ice ages that occur every 150 million years. CO₂ levels were actually significantly higher (10 times plus) around 450 million years ago but the world was still in a deep ice age (similar to our current temperatures). From 600 up to 350 million years ago, CO₂ levels dropped down to levels similar to our current levels. This was a natural process. Over time atmospheric CO₂ was being sequestered by the planet as hydrocarbons (oil, gas and coal) and carbonate rock. The CO₂ concentrations levelled off during the Permo-Carboniferous ice age about 300 million years ago. The CO₂ concentrations began increasing at the end of that ice age. The rising CO₂ was most likely due to extreme volcanic activity associated with major plate tectonic action. The sequestration process dominated again around 150 million years ago and CO₂ levels began dropping to the current levels. Although CO₂ is not driving the global temperatures it is probably playing a role in modulating the major ice ages. The very high CO₂ levels may have shortened the ice age at 450 million years ago, played a role in ending the ice age at 300 million years ago and shortened/tempered the ice age at 150 million years ago.

Take away:      

1. CO₂ and Global Temperatures have not moved in unison over this time scale.

2. Rising CO₂ levels did not cause any runaway temperature increases.

3. The planet’s “normal” temperature is roughly 10 °C higher than current temperatures.

Temperatures and Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations – Past 420,000 Years

The next time scale to look at is the last 420,000 years (Figure 2). Additional ice core data back to 800,000 years ago is available but the temperature/CO₂ relationships do not change. The ice cores obtained from Greenland and the Antarctic provide a detailed estimate of temperatures and CO₂ concentrations. At this time scale, there is a definite correlation between CO₂ and temperature. However, temperature is driving the CO₂ concentration. When temperatures increase, CO₂ increases (with a delay of several centuries). When the temperatures decrease, CO₂ also decreases (generally with a delay of several millennia). This is just a natural thermodynamic process. As temperatures rise, the CO₂ stored in the ocean is gradually released. The CO₂ response is delayed by centuries, due to the time required to transfer that heat throughout the world’s oceans. The reverse happens as the temperatures decline. CO₂ is absorbed by the oceans, but the process takes much longer.

This is the same data that Al Gore used to promote his Inconvenient Truth movie. Somehow, he “forgot” to mention that the temperature moved before the CO₂ concentrations. That was just one of many “misrepresentations” that Al has put forward over the years.

I’m going to present some additional data here that isn’t as widely distributed. The plot (Figure 2a) on the following page comes from a presentation by Dr. John Harper (Former Director, Energy Canada – Geological Survey of Canada from July 2009 – May 2011). The data provides a window into some of the CO₂ changes that occurred during the glaciation associated with Carboniferous/Permian time frame (250 – 300 million years ago). CO₂ was not fluctuating with temperature on the 600 million year time scale. In reality, CO₂ and temperature would still need to move in unison (with the appropriate delays) since the Law of Thermodynamics must still be adhered to. You just have to get to tighter time frames to see that relationship (i.e.: the Greenland/Antarctic ice core data or other focussed data such as that presented on the following page). The atmospheric CO₂ levels were fluctuating between 300 and 3500 ppm during this 50 million year period. The same detail is not available on the temperature so we can’t make any direct relationship declarations. But realistically the only natural process that could move CO₂ (both up and down) on those time frames is significant temperature changes. Cold temperatures drive down the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations to less than 400 ppm during major glaciation periods. When the planet warms up, the CO₂ concentrations rise back up to the ambient levels (3500 ppm for the Carboniferous/Permian period). As an aside, ocean CO₂ concentrations would also have been higher during this period since there was more CO₂ in the system. Most of the atmospheric CO₂ associated with the drop from 3500 – 400 ppm would have been absorbed by the oceans. A much more significant volume of CO₂ than what we as humans can add to the ocean at our current levels of 400 ppm or even the projected levels of 700 – 800 ppm. Ocean life survived these periods of much higher CO₂ concentrations and will survive the current CO₂ levels. A similar process has been occurring during the Quaternary period (as shown in the ice core data) but the ambient CO₂ level is much lower (probably around 700 – 800 ppm based on the CO₂ levels before we descended into the deep ice age, roughly 50 million years ago). Global temperatures at that time were significantly higher than the current temperatures. The current CO₂ level of 410 ppm is the result of both temperature increases out of the deep ice age and more recently the Little Ice Age plus our more recent human emissions. Whether humans existed or not the CO₂ levels would eventually get back into that 700 – 800 ppm range. That is probably millions of years in the future since we just started the current deep glaciation just a few million years ago. The deep glaciations tend to last 10s of millions of years.

I haven’t seen the Ordovician CO₂ data mentioned at the bottom of the chart, but if the CO₂ concentrations were down below 400 ppm (and based on the Laws of Thermodynamics they should be), they will provide additional confirmation of the previous discussion. Ambient CO₂ levels would have been a bit higher than the Permian at 4500 ppm.

The Sun as a Driver of Climate

The data sets, laid out in the following two pages, are very interesting and highlight the relatively insignificant role CO₂ has played in directly driving the planet’s temperature history. I would suggest that everyone read the following paper “Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks”. The paper goes into a lot of detail which I will not get into in this discussion.

This chart (Figure 3) highlights the sun’s role in driving the earth’s climate as laid out according to the Milankovitch cycles. The Milankovitch cycle is actually a consolidation of three cycles. The shortest relevant cycle is the Axial Precession at 26,000 years. Axial Precession is the change in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation (relative to the fixed stars). The Axial Precession is nearing the bottom of its cycle. The longest relevant cycle is the earth’s orbital eccentricity at roughly 100,000 years. The eccentricity also fluctuates on a 400,000 year cycle but is not as important in the discussion of average global temperatures. The eccentricity ranges between 0.000055 (nearly circular) to 0.0679 (mildly elliptical) and is currently 0.017 and decreasing. These two cycles consolidate to form the Apsidal Precession that corresponds to the 21,000 year insolation cycles shown above. The third cycle relates to the earth’s axial tilt (obliquity). The tilt shifts between 22.1° and 24.5° (and back again) every 41,000 years. The tilt is currently 23.44° and is decreasing. Full detailed descriptions can be found on Wikipedia.

The Temperature fluctuations are shown in red. The major temperature spikes correspond to interglacial warm periods. We are currently living through the Holocene interglacial (far right on the graph). The interglacial warm periods occur every ±100,000 years and correspond directly to the eccentricity cycle highs (Figure 4, on the following page). The temperature anomalies correlate very well with the insolation strength which is not surprising since we receive virtually all of our energy from the sun. As an aside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses only the sun’s total irradiance (which does not vary significantly, ±1%) in their computer models. The amount of energy actually reaching the earth’s surface can vary much more significantly (≈22%) and needs to be factored in. The 100,000 year cycle appears to be the most important factor in establishing interglacial warm periods. Note our position in the current cycle. Insolation strength decreases off the peaks tend to be followed by sharp temperature drops into deep ice ages. The interglacial warm periods tend to last (on average) 14,000 years. We’re currently 15,000 years into the Holocene interglacial. We appear to be sitting in a very precarious position (note that every dip in the eccentricity is associated with a deep ice age and that is the direction we are headed). I (personally) would be more concerned with temperature drops than temperature increases. Hopefully recent CO₂ increases have been keeping us (and will continue to keep us) above the tipping point that drops us into the deep ice ages.

The paper does however, put forward an interesting role for CO₂ and the part it plays in initiating interglacial warm periods. The following chart lays out the data from the previous discussion in a different format and adds in some additional data.

For the record CO₂ is not directly driving these temperature fluctuations but does play a role. To understand that contradiction we need to look at Figure 4. The time scale has been expanded to 800,000 years from 450,000 years. The first point to note is the very direct relationship between Temperature (red) and CO₂ concentrations (yellow) on these time scales. When the data is reviewed in detail, it becomes very clear that the temperature changes are driving the changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration. This is very basic thermodynamics. As the temperature rises, more CO₂ is released from the oceans and when the temperature drops, more CO₂ is absorbed by the ocean. The CO₂ changes take centuries to kick in due to the sheer size of the oceans and atmosphere. To summarize, on this time scale temperature drives CO₂.  CO₂ is not driving the temperature.

The interesting data set on this chart is represented in purple. This data represents the amount of dust that has settled in Antarctica over time (based on the Epica ice cores). Every warm interglacial period is preceded by significant dust accumulations. Why is this important? Very simply, dusty ice/snow absorbs more heat than pristine ice/snow. Pristine ice/snow has a very high albedo and reflects most of the sun’s energy back into space. The other dataset to note at this time is the earth’s eccentricity (black). Every peak in this 100,000 year cycle is associated with an interglacial warm period. That is not coincidence! The amount of dust grows over tens of thousands of years. The earth’s albedo continues to decrease over that period and when the earth enters an up eccentricity cycle (combined with an insolation spike), the albedo has dropped to the point where the melting of the massive ice sheets accelerates and temperatures increase significantly thrusting the planet back into an interglacial warm period.

So what is CO₂’s role in this process? As I mentioned earlier CO₂ is not directly driving the temperature. However, as temperature drops into the deep ice ages, the atmospheric CO₂ levels drop as well. When the CO₂ levels drop below 200 ppm, plant life becomes very distressed and wide spread desertification occurs. As desert areas expand, dust storms increase and dust accumulations increase at the poles. That cycle is repeated over and over again in the historical records but doesn’t appear to be factored into the IPCC’s “scientific” process.

CO₂ levels dropped as low as 185 ppm in the last ice age (and have been trending lower with each ice age). At 150 ppm, plant life and therefore virtually all life ceases to exist on this planet. I would suggest that we need to add CO₂ to the atmosphere since plants are still stressed at our current 400 ppm level. Optimum levels for plant growth are closer to 1,500 ppm than our current levels. The last point I want to make on Figure 4 is the current direction of the eccentricity. The direction is down and will ultimately reach its lowest point in the last 800,000 years. That is not a good sign for temperature direction. Every deep ice age (i.e.: a 100% correlation) over the last 800,000 years (8 in total) has been associated with a low point in the eccentricity cycle and that is where we are headed. The overall insolation strength is currently moving up modestly overall and may hopefully keep us from going into a major deep freeze in the near term. The interglacial warm periods (like the current Holocene) are associated with highs in the eccentricity cycle.

Temperatures and Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations – Past 150,000 Years

The above chart (Figure 5) focuses in on the last full cycle of temperature and CO₂ concentration to show the relationship in a little more detail. The delayed CO₂ response initiated by temperature changes are readily visible for significant changes (several centuries for temperature rises and several millennia for temperature decreases, highlighted above).

Take away:

1. CO₂ and Global Temperatures are generally moving in unison over this time scale.

2. However, global temperatures usually move first, followed by CO₂ concentrations (with century and/or millennia delays). A typical thermodynamic response.

3. Rising CO₂ levels did not cause any runaway temperature increases.

4. The sun (in relation to orbital patterns) is the primary driver of global temperatures on these time scales.

Temperatures and Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations – Past 12,000 Years

The next focus will be the Holocene interglacial warm period (roughly the last 12,000 years). Figure 6 is a graph of the temperatures from Greenland (GISP2) plotted in red, the normalized temperatures from the Antarctic (Vostok) plotted in green and the historical CO₂ concentration from the Vostok ice cores plotted in blue for the past 12,000 years. The Greenland data demonstrates more pronounced temperature fluctuations than the Antarctic data. The Antarctic data is characterized by a minor temperature rise followed by a minor decline with the inflection point occurring roughly 5,000 years ago. The Greenland data has more defined periods that often correspond to major periods in human history (highlighted with names). The difference in temperature fluctuations is primarily due to earth’s geography. The northern hemisphere has a lot more land mass than the southern hemisphere and the north pole is all water (open or frozen) versus the south pole’s position on the Antarctic continent.

There are a few key features on this chart that need to be pointed out. Firstly, the temperature in Greenland has been noticeably dropping since the temperature peak associated with the Minoan Warm Period. The Modern Warm Period is not fully represented in the ice core data but will be shown in later figures. Later in Figure 9b I present that the current Greenland average temperature is around -30 °C when we use the NASA-GISS manipulated modern data set. Which of course makes the estimated current Greenland temperature warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The evidence of Vikings growing crops in Greenland colonies during the MWP negates the concept that Greenland was colder than present day during the MWP. Qualitatively, this suggests that the NASA-GISS data must be overstated. 

In general, humans thrive during the warm periods and suffer through the cold periods (the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age). When global average temperatures drop by 1 or 2 °C, the earth’s growing season in the Northern hemisphere decreases (significantly) and drifts south resulting in major crop failures and less productive land. The obvious outcome has been massive global starvation, epidemics and civil strife. In the past 12,000 years, there is actually an inverse relationship between temperature and CO₂. Temperatures initially rose as CO₂ decreased, then temperatures began declining after the Holocene maximum (5,000 years ago in Antarctica and 7,000 years ago in Greenland) despite rising CO₂ concentrations. The effect is more pronounced in the Northern hemisphere but the trends are still visible in the Southern hemisphere data

Take away:

1. CO₂ and Global Temperatures are generally moving in opposition over this time scale.

2. Global temperatures have generally been declining for the last 5,000 – 7,000 years.

Temperature Records – Since 1850

The modern temperature data sets, presented in Figure 7, begin in the mid 1800’s. Conveniently, for the Global Warming crowd that corresponds to the end of the Little Ice Age. A rise in temperature is not unusual after periods of lower temperature (i.e.: just look back at the data we have just covered).

The HadCrut4 data set is the oldest estimate of global temperature beginning in 1850. NASA-GISS data begins in 1880 and is initially comparable to HadCrut4. Around 1975 the two data sets begin to diverge from one another. By 2017 the NASA-GISS data set is more than 0.4 °C higher than the HadCrut4 data set. Given that the raw data is obtained from the same source, the difference must be due to the method used to average the data (a process called homogenization). Every group uses their own algorithms to come up with a global average temperature. Given that the science is “settled”, you’d think that the NASA-GISS value wouldn’t be 40% higher than the HadCrut4 value. Two satellite data sets are also available. The UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) data (plotted on Figure 7) is another 0.34 °C lower than the HadCrut4 data. The RSS satellite data is similar to but higher than the UAH data (located between the UAH and HadCrut data sets). So which data set is the right one? I prefer to go with the satellite data for a few reasons. Firstly, the satellite data agrees with the weather balloon data. Secondly, the satellite data has a much tighter sampling grid and covers almost the entire planet making satellite estimates the most accurate method of estimating an average global temperature. If you believe in “Global Warming” you choose the NASA-GISS data set. My issue with the NASA-GISS data set (and the HadCrut4 to a lesser degree) is their homogenization process. I’ll provide one example of the process in the next section.

Evidence of Temperature Manipulation

The actual measured temperatures at the Darwin Airport have been declining at 0.7 °C/century since 1880. The temperature trend used in the NASA-GISS averages is an increase of 1.2 °C/century. The homogenization process is adding over 2 °C to the measured temperatures. The global data has to be and is being manipulated (you can’t just take the earth’s temperature). Unfortunately, the justification for that amount of manipulation has not been opened up for peer review. Which begs the question, what are they hiding?

More Details on Temperature Manipulation

Just so there’s no need to get into an argument over which data set to use, I’ll go with the NASA-GISS data set for this section of the discussion (despite the unjustified manipulation that I believe they’re using). The following charts have the NASA-GISS data set attached to the historical data from ice cores.

I have a couple of simple questions for everyone to contemplate while looking at the above Figures. How is this temperature change over the last 150 years alarming?  How is it any different from the historic fluctuations seen in the GISP2 historic record?

The NASA-GISS temperature anomaly (Figure 9a) was increased by a factor of 2 to force an equivalent temperature in the polar regions. The temperature change (even using the overstated NASA-GISS values) is not an unusual change in temperature. The historic temperature fluctuations over the last 12,000 years are not due to CO2 concentrations changes. The recent warming could easily be a continuation of well-established natural cycles (in whole or in part).

Figure 10 presents the CO₂ concentrations in green alongside the NASA-GISS and UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville satellite data) temperature anomalies. Despite the significant data manipulation NASA has conducted over the years on the GISS dataset, the natural oscillations are still visible

The HadCrut4 data in Figure 11 presents the natural cycles in more detail. The roughly 60 year cycles correspond closely to the Atlantic Multidecadal and Pacific Decadal Oscillations (AMO and PDO). The oscillations occur as the average ocean temperatures switch between hot and cold every 30 years. I’m not going to go into detail on the various ocean cycles but they are one of the significant reasons that the temperature dataset is not smooth on this time scale. However, there are a couple of points I would like to mention at this time. Firstly, the overwhelming majority of the energy that drives the ocean cycles comes from the sun and secondly the ocean affects the atmospheric temperature a lot more than the atmosphere affects the ocean temperature.

The NASA-GISS temperature anomaly over the 1970 – 2000 time period correlates very well with the CO2 data and it is possible that CO2 has been a significant contributor to temperature rise over this period. However, the temperature has not increased significantly (if at all) since 2000 (apart from the strong 2016 el Nino which is not a climate change event).

The actual contribution by CO2 (over that 1970 – 2000 period) would be mitigated by the ocean cycle effects (both the AMO and PDO). Both cycles began warming in 1970 and would have contributed significantly to the 1970 – 2000 period warming (i.e.: all of the 1970 – 2000 warming is not due to CO2 and the presented CO2/global temperature correlation is not actually totally direct).

Roughly 1/3 of mankind’s CO₂ emissions have occurred since the strong el Nino in 1998, yet temperatures have only increased marginally. CO₂ has not been the primary global temperature driver for the last couple of decades or there would have been a significant rise in temperature as predicted (incorrectly) by the climate computer models.

I’m not going to go into a major discussion on the computer models simply because the forecasts are not data based and are therefore not proof of any future temperature rise or proof of the theories programmed into the simulations. And as I mentioned historical predictions have so far been incorrect. My focus is on the relationship between CO₂ concentrations and global temperatures in the actual data.

Relationship of Solar Activity to Global Temperatures

The previous discussion covers a significant portion of the available global temperature and CO2 concentration data. The remaining discussion will focus on the levels of solar activity and its relationship with global temperatures. This will not be comprehensive but it will provide an overview on the importance of that relationship.

A variety of time scales covering most of the Holocene interglacial period will be reviewed.

The primary points presented in Figure 12 are the significant solar activity lows experienced through the Little Ice Age (150 to 700 years ago) and the rapidly rising solar activity levels corresponding to the rise in temperature coming out of the Little Ice Age. Solar activity peaked in the early 21^st century at the highest levels in the last 7,000 years. The rising solar activity has likely played a significant role in those rising temperatures.

The chart in Figure 13 on the next page zooms in on the past 1,000 years.

Figure 13 includes NASA’s estimate of total solar irradiance (TSI) in orange as a comparison to the Luning and Vahrenholt (1610 – 2016) dataset displayed in blue. The TSI tracks are very similar where they overlap. And again you can see the TSI rising along with the global temperature (NASA-GISS data set) out of the Little Ice Age. That rising TSI would have contributed (directly and indirectly) to the rise in temperature over the last century or two.

The chart below focuses on the past 140 years.

Figure 14 is the final TSI and Global Temperature correlation chart. This 140 year period is conveniently the period the “Global Warming” crowd focuses on. As laid out earlier, the Dalton Solar Minimum was one of the low points (for TSI and temperature) during the Little Ice Age. However, the temperature rise out of the Little Ice Age has not been unusual in duration or magnitude. In fact, the temperature actually correlates very well to the solar activity based on pre-1978 GISS surface data and the 1978-2018 UAH satellite data (the consolidated black curve on a 13 month moving average). The correlation will never be perfect because there are a wide variety of climate drivers (ocean cycles, cosmic ray modulations (cloud cover), etc.) that will cause deviations. The TSI data does not correlate with the NASA-GISS data set post 1978. But as discussed earlier, the NASA-GISS data set has been subjected to very significant manipulation (i.e.: the homogenization process discussed earlier which routinely adjusted the measured temperatures up). Virtually all of the NASA-GISS temperature rise post 1950 is due to the homogenization process. Measured temperatures have not increased substantially since the “dirty thirties” (which still hold the bulk of the record high temperatures). The current UAH global temperature anomaly (August 2018 – +0.19 °C) is actually virtually identical to the NASA-GISS temperature anomaly from the late 1930’s, early 1940’s. As mentioned earlier, this is also virtually identical to the early years of this century. Given that the homogenization process conveniently lowers the temperatures pre-1950, the currently reported temperature highs are likely significantly lower than the actual 1940’s temperatures.

Relationship of CO₂ to Global Temperatures

This is a good point to bring CO₂ back into the discussion. CO₂ increases will lead to an increase in the global temperature. The magnitude of that increase is very much in doubt. There are theories that suggest CO₂ will have very little to no effect on future temperatures and theories that put forward catastrophic temperature increases (and options between these two extremes).

CO₂’s ability to act as a greenhouse gas is based on its ability to absorb and re-emit energy to heat the atmosphere. There are peer-reviewed, scientific papers that show that the energy is absorbed in a very narrow band (14 – 17 µm) that is already saturated. Essentially any additional CO₂ above the 350 ppm level will only marginally add to the earth’s global temperature. That is a very technical discussion that I’m not going to try and defend in this discussion. The catastrophic viewpoint on the other hand is based solely on computer models that use unsubstantiated theories to multiply the theoretical effect of CO₂. And again I’ll remind you that the computer models have not been able to predict the climate over the first 19 years of this century. I have my doubts that their accuracy will improve over the rest of the century. In simple terms, the models assume that any increase in temperature due to CO₂ will lead to more evaporation and therefore additional water vapour (by far the most important greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. Nothing wrong with that part of the theory. However, what happens to the water molecules after they enter the atmosphere is very poorly understood. If they stayed in the gas phase, the models might be valid. However, based on actual measurements, atmospheric water saturations are not going up. So where are those water molecules going?

The most likely destination is the increased global cloud cover and precipitation that we have experienced over the last couple of years. With respect to the computer models, clouds are simply too complicated to simulate (as per the IPCC’s own documents). One of the many reasons the models have not been able to accurately predict the climate. Very simply additional low cloud cover actually cools the planet. The bulk of the energy from the sun never gets to the surface and is simply reflected back into space where low cloud cover exists. And unfortunately, the amount of low cloud cover is expected to continue increasing over the next decade or two as the sun goes into a very quiet phase (a Grand Solar Minimum). These solar cycles are well documented and you’ll find that NASA has decided to finally recognize that a solar minimum is coming and will be accompanied by a drop in temperature. However, based on the flawed models, NASA is still pushing the ever increasing global temperatures. Cloud cover increases as the sun’s energy output decreases. When the sun’s energy decreases, the solar wind strength drops and cosmic ray intensity rises. Cosmic rays play a very key role in initiating cloud formation. Again very technical so I’m not going to get into that discussion here. Review Svensmark’s work on cloud formation and the experimental work conducted in CERN’s cloud chamber.

Now let’s talk briefly about CO₂‘s heating capacity. CO₂‘s ability to heat the atmosphere (the Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS)) is still open to some debate, but effectively a doubling of CO₂ will increase the global temperature by roughly 1.2 °C (based on the IPCC’s science). So if we start back in the deep ice age where the CO₂ level was 185 ppm and double that to 370 ppm (which is close to the current 400 ppm) only 1.2 °C of that change from miles of ice over Canada to the present was due to CO₂. Is it not possible that there may be other factors in play? Good chance there is. But let’s keep the analogy going. Another doubling will take the CO₂ level to 740 ppm and add another 1.2 °C. One more iteration takes us to 1480 ppm and adds yet another 1.2 °C. Now, NASA states that if we burn all of the oil, gas and coal on the planet (which won’t happen) we would raise CO₂ levels to 1500 ppm. Therefore the maximum that CO₂ alone can raise the temperature in a virtually impossible case (1500 ppm) is another 2.4 °C.

A second measure of CO₂’s heating ability is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). This factors in other feedback loops. The IPCC’s most recent estimate of ECS has a range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C (averaging 3.2 °C) for a doubling of CO₂. A more recent study by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry puts the ECS estimate at the bottom end of the IPCC range (1.5 °C) using the HadCrut4 temperature history. If a portion of the temperature recovery since the Little Ice Age ended is due to natural causes (i.e.: as laid out earlier, solar activity (directly and indirectly)), the ECS value will drop further. Given that most of mankind’s CO₂ contribution has occurred post-1950, natural processes have to be the dominant driver from 1850 – 1950. Corrections for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) would also push the ECS lower. A significant number of weather stations are located in urban areas (which are warmer than surrounding countryside (the UHIE).

Based on a review of the evidence, my conclusion is that the TCS is at or below 1 ºC. Both the TCS and ECS estimates have been trending down over time (and will continue to do so as additional data and evaluation techniques become available). As a side note, these downtrends don’t actually back up the concept of “settled science” very well (i.e.: CO2 climate sensitivities have not been nailed down and they are the number one factor in determining CO2’s ultimate warming capabilities).

The above chart (Figure 15) combines the temperature anomalies with both the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and solar activity levels. The solar activity fits much better than the CO₂ data with the temperature data. Especially when the satellite temperature data is used. As discussed previously, the deviation between solar activity and temperature since the 1970’s can be attributed (to a large degree) to the homogenization process used by HadCrut4 and I believe a small component of heating due to rising CO₂ levels. I also need to point out that this chart does not factor in the effects of the ocean cycles. And that is the essence of the problem with the anthropogenic global warming crowd. You can’t focus on one component (CO₂) and expect to understand climate change. CO₂ has been moving higher in a very steady manner, unlike temperature anomalies which have been very erratic (regardless of which temperature record (NASA/GISS, HadCrut4, UAH, RSS, etc.) you want to use. The CO₂ concentration is not causing those undulations. The remaining data and discussion points focus briefly on a variety of “Climate Change” topics and up-to-date climate indicators.

The list of additional topic discussions is outlined below. The data and opinions presented in each of the discussions was used in developing the primary discussion. A review of all of these separate discussions is required to fully understand the basics of our current climate situation.

Satellite-Radiosonde Temperature Data

Model Generated versus Observed Temperature Data

Disappearing Arctic Ice

Antarctic Ice Situation

Extreme Weather Discussion

Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent

Sea Level Thoughts

Ocean Cycles

Solar Activity and Sunspot Numbers

Scientific Consensus Thoughts

Musing on the Benefits of CO2

General Comments on the Hypocrisy of CO2 Demonization

Final Recap

*Addendum

Sources/Information Data Sheet