It has been nearly three decades since the topic of global warming, and then climate change, came on the scene as a hot (pardon the pun) topic on the pages and screens of our news media.
Most people have taken sides as to whether or not humanity plays a role in determining the temperature of our planet.
Whichever side you choose, it may not matter because the majority of the people will make the final decision. This decision making majority is not into the climate change debate for personal gains, political power, or social rewards.
It is out of genuine concern to do the right thing for humanity, their children, and all life on Earth. Yet many are ambivalent, confused about the science or lack thereof to support one opinion or the other confidently.
I believe that most are concerned with the least important factors rather than the most accurate answers.
Let’s first establish that climate change is most definitely real. We all know that in the past, there were ice ages and wooly mammoths.
We know about the heat of the dust bowl years of the 1930s pictured in the famous movie The Grapes of Wrath.
Here I plan to give you the major vital factors that cause the climate to change.
I choose to divide the controlling factors into four groups, leaving last those issues with which the reader is likely most familiar.
The first group is related to the planetary orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The closer the Earth is to the Sun, the warmer it will be on Earth.
We learned in grade school that the Earth is 93 million miles away, orbiting around it once a year. But this orbit is not always the same but is always changing.
At times, the orbit is almost perfectly round; then, over thousands of years, it elongates and looks like a stretched out pancake, which we call an ellipse.
About every 100,000 years, the Sun makes a complete shift from this maximum elliptical shape when the Earth goes as much as 120 million miles away to a near-perfect round shape. Then the Earth is only 83 million miles away and it starts all over again, back to elliptical.
This changing distance between the Earth and the Sun makes a big difference, which results in a change in our climate.
Picture yourself at a campfire sitting nine feet from the fire and then moving to a place seven feet from the fire. That is the same ratio the Earth experiences moving between 83 million miles and 120 million miles.
The second factor that figures in the climate change story is the tilt of the Earth relative to the Sun.
Presently this tilt is 23.7 degrees as shown in Figure 1, but again things are always changing.
The northern hemisphere of the Earth will slowly tilt more toward the Sun, then slowly starts tilting back away from the Sun. But after 40,000 years, it will be back to the tilt we see today.
Within those 40,000 years, the tilt can range between 24.5 and 22.7 degrees. The tilt is significant as it determines winter, spring, summer, and fall and what their temperature ranges are likely to be.
The third group of factors that impact the Earth is contained within the Sun itself. The Sun undergoes very complicated and powerful magnetic cycles from high activity to low activity.
It is easy to tell the difference from here on Earth. When the activity is high, we see lots of spots on the Sun. When we see few or even none, we know the activity levels are low, as can be solar radiation.
Scientists have been carefully counting these spots for hundreds of years since Galileo got his first telescope.
With satellites and advanced telescopes, NASA gets a count every day and also measures how big or small they are.
As we see in Figure 2, scientists discovered without a question that these events go up and down in clear 11-year cycles.
Believe it or not, astronomers have recorded 24 such cycles in the past 250 years. Presently we are at the end of a cycle with near-zero sunspots.
NASA has confirmed in recent years that increasing sunspots are linked to increases in Earth temperature as well as the other planets, like Mars and Saturn, and even the moons.
Essentially, none of the factors in these three groups are seriously considered in the alarmist views.
They tell us that we are the primary forces controlling Earth temperatures by the burning of fossil fuels and releasing their carbon dioxide. I hope my readers can recognize the absurdity of their claims.
Now to the final group 4, the factors that logically and recognizably play a role in climate change.
It is these variables that climate modelers try to use to create equations that supposedly tell us about how our climate will change for the coming decades.
These factors are easy to understand but mostly impossible to predict.
They include such things as the impact of clouds, the role of sea ice and glaciers, hurricanes and tornadoes, vegetation, the balance between the Earth’s water, water vapor and ice, as well as the energy, flows between the oceans, the land, and the air.
With these tools and methods, we can predict the weather for the next few days, maybe even weeks away. Surely they can’t predict the weather a year away, let alone decades into the future.
I hope this short tutorial on the big climate change picture will make you more skeptical. After all, that’s the first responsibility of all real scientists: run experiments, gather data, put together a theory, then have as many experts try to shoot it down as best they can.
The output of computer models is not data. Instead, these models are used to justify the nonsense they tell us: that life on Earth will end in a dozen or so years along with other ridiculous predictions for the future.
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted from the 2020 book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change with the permission of its coauthor Terigi Ciccone. The book is the best possible source for parents and grandparents to explain reality to their children.
Earth in space image by Guillaume Preat from Pixabay
Read more at CFACT
The COVID – 19 models are an example of the serious flaws with multi
input variables that are at best guesses .
The global warming models used to justify the earth has a fever pandemic
grossly over stated any warming but they stuck .
The almost weekly changes to the COVID -19 models and dramatically revised forecasts bring home the fact policy based on models are wrong .
So, researchers are looking at the current readings of atmospheric carbon dioxide content, hoping to find that a drop in that value due to the world wide slowing/shutdown of industry, might precede a drop in global temperature. Then it will be – “Carbon dioxide really is the ‘control knob’ for temperature”.
In the Great Depression, the two major industrial producers of CO2 were the US and Germany. Coal consumption dropped about 45% in the US and about 35% in Germany in the 1930’s. The mid 30’s marked the height of the ‘dust bowl’ era, hot and dry. I wonder what is going to happen this time – if anything…..
This is correct. The cycles that affect the 1,000 year cycles up and down of a couple of degrees are both well known/observed in fact and closely related to solar cycles that are shown in cosmogenic elements that are well detected in the 11 years solar cycles, so a clear indicator of 1,000 year cycles.. The 3 main MIlnkovitch cycles closely control the progress of the ice ages by in combination through the effects of of orbital forcing, on scale well outside the climate change debate by humans, whose interglacial civilisation occupies 1/10 of one 100Ka ice age cycle.
Analysing the actual proxy and direct temperature data for cycles shows them clearly, and also the lack of a monotonic signal that a human AGW effect would cause. So the theory regarding AGW has been proven wrong on the basic analysis of the actual records. It only needs one person to prove the consensus, which has never been proved right, wrong. Attacking the paper as denial with a contrary consensus proves nothing in science fact, only proving the Ludecke and Weiss paper wrong in fact makes their reality go away. Thre is no significant AGW. “All we see is cycles”.
But The Milankovitch Cycle is irrelevant in this context. They do cause the much longer interglacial cycles, I suggest by a considerable increase in the well known planetary twerking effect they exert on the solid Earth, for the 100Ka cycle at times of maximum eccentricity, and hence the large submarine volcanic increase, that we also observe at these times by the same Fourier analysis, but of emission rates.. NOT by the atmospheric effect, of CO2 or anything else, the direct ocean warming is far more powerful.
Not just a theory, or a computerised numerical model with “forcing” assumptions, a direct physical effect supported by actual observations. This is my theory, which is mine…..
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
The biggist lie the Eco-Freaks have Spread is The earth is Fragile and another of their lies is the delicate Balance of Nature(I have heard this one for long time)and We are Not Destroying the Earth anyone who thinks were destroying the earth is either Stupid or just plain Misinformed
The article left out the geology impacts to climate. We all know about El Niño. This is caused by warming in Equatorial Pacific. This is believed to be caused by geological vents deep in the ocean. In past the fine particulate matter thrown up by a very large volcanic eruption has caused cooling for a few years. If the geological activity under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet ever sends it into the ocean a lot of lower elevation land will be flooded and this has to impact the climate. However, climate activists are in denial that anything other than CO2 has an influence on the climate because only by reducing carbon dioxide emissions can they made “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”
The AGW climate change issue is whether the recovery from the Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming that has persisted to this day is dtiven by fossil fuel emissions and whether it can or should be stopped by reducing fossil fuel emissions to zero. What on earth is the relevance in this context of glaciation cycles and the sunspot cycle????
Chaamjmal, the Little Ice Age began in the 1600s. The thermometer was invented a hundred years later. Climate moves naturally in far greater swings and far more powerfully than the insignificant effect from 0.01% of the atmosphere CO2. That is the relevance. CO2, the essential ingredient molecule for life on earth has increased about 40%. That is far more important for life on earth (a good thing) than it is influential on climate. And since multicellular life began 600 million years ago near 7000ppm, and all life begins to die at 150ppm, and since during glacial phases of our ONGOING Pleistocene/Holocene Ice Age CO2 declines to within 30ppm of lethality, that is also relevant.
Respectfully disagree sir. The issue is Holocene dynamics at centennial and millennial time scales. The Milankovitch Cycle is irrelevant in this context.
Quite right- the author of this shameless guff is a poster child for bothscientific illeracy and intellectual dishonesty