The news and opinion pieces are packed with the ongoing carbon dioxide disaster. Desperate measures are suggested with astonishing estimates for as much as $4500 per year in costs to each American family by 2015, just eight years out. Estimates of costs for drilling into the earth to bury CO2 run to $7.2 trillion and other hysterical headlines. Stories and publicity events rattle our contentment practically every day. Dramatic prognostications and opinions punctuate our politics and influence our taxes, investments and the personal budgets of every one of us.

Just how real is it, anyway? There is some pretty good data out there. An example is “The Summary for Policy Makers,” produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In a way it’s actually a pretty good job! But the agenda driven scientists and statesmen formulated a way to make it seem quite alarming, and the press by its nature boldly reported those angles and hyped along the most spectacular aspects to essentially misinform us all.

See: (quite a large pdf)

The summary has its problems, be they intentional or simply errors, which certainly embolden the wild commentary. It blindly accepts the alleged 20th century CO2 rise to be 36%, when the supporting data from direct measurement is closer to 15%. The models adopted for the summary assume an annual increase of 1%, although over the past 50 years the long term measured average is less than half – .043%.

The models treat the oceans as if they were filled with distilled water, empty of life and other materials, when the reality is they are full of life and are vigorous buffers for CO2 because the plants living there use the CO2 for food. No note is made that burning all the known fossil fuels on the earth would raise oceanic CO2 by 20% or less. That would be a feast for the occupants of the earth’s oceans.

Mankind can’t get its hands on the CO2 to “double the content of CO2 at sea,” it just hasn’t been discovered yet. Ice cores tell us that CO2 lags rather than leads temperatures by sometimes as much as 800 years. It overlooks the big energy holding gas in the atmosphere – water vapor. And just ignores that the proportion of CO2 is a fraction of a percent of the whole air zone around us.

The IPCC bases it conclusions that they’re no problems with the global databases, stating that urbanization has a negligible effect on global changes. It ignores dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing urban area’s impacts to be substantial from massive areas such as China’s densely populated metropolises to the innumerable small ponds and lakes mankind has built over the centuries.

The summary fails to inform us that the total global monitoring stations decreased by 66% after 1990, and that the reporting absences (not reporting) increased ten-fold primarily from the former Soviet Union and Africa. There seems to be forgiveness about the majority of stations that do report that might not be up to standard for their sites. This is widely documented in the peer review journals, who also worry about this as a half dozen or so papers that suggest these problems might well produce a 50% error showing up in the databases.

The US National Climactic Data Center relies on 1,221 stations across the US, which are much more standardized, properly sited and are run by trained personnel. These stations are adjusted for urbanization and produce data much more accurately for examining climate change. The data does show the cycles in nature as they rise and fall over time, both man made and by nature.

When looking at hard data check what’s available at:

where there is a wealth of complied information. One of the countless maps and graphs offered at NCDC graphs US annual mean temperatures. The result is rather instructive. Looking for the maximum-to-maximum and the minimum-to-minimum changes, one finds a 0.37 degree Fahrenheit change over 110 years. That’s less than one half of the claimed global trend and the often-stated US trend.

Man does play a role, and a big one. CO2 is a part but the big atmospheric player is water vapor. I wonder sometimes why some scientists insist on not “adjusting for urbanization.” Evaporation rates where there are roofs, streets, and parking lots focusing runoff into lakes and ponds allow faster vaporization than when the rain would soak into the ground to be evaporated by plant growth over days or weeks. It’s not like hundreds of years ago when narrow streams and rivers carried runoff away. Now there are beautiful lakes and ponds all across the planet exposed to direct sunshine, and a noteworthy amount of rain doesn’t soak into the ground for slow plant life respiration back into the atmosphere.

The energy source for all of this and everything in human existence other than our own fission nuclear power plants comes or came from the sun. It has cycles over 11, 22, 80 and 180 years and perhaps we’ll find more as research continues to explore the climactic history. Simply put, as the Sun’s activity rate varies the solar radiation we receive rises and falls, thus warming more or less the atmosphere that covers us. More radiation, we’re warmer, less and we’re cooler.

The IPCC acknowledged that solar radiation effects “may be important” (editors note – really, they said “may be important”) when it chose a new untested model approach, rather than data, that suggested the sun’s long term role is not as great. This despite a wide array of peer reviewed studies showing the sun is more important than considered in the 2001 summary. In the 2001 summary the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph appeared, which has been thoroughly discredited in numerous peer reviewed papers, and its noticeably missing this time around even as the summary panel found a new model for a substitute. The new model approach may not last the year.

Obviously the sun plays a significant role, if it didn’t it would be rather dark out today. Common sense seems to have simply taken flight to another universe about this in the summary.

The planet’s oceans also play a role in the temperature of the atmosphere. They warm and cool over decades long periods, they affect the atmosphere as well as establish their own circulation.

As the Pacific warms it forms more El Ninos and as a heat repository, contributes to global warming. When it has cooled there are more La Ninas and as it absorbs atmospheric heat makes for global cooling.

The Atlantic with its very different shape that makes unique current flows has a 70-year oscillation cycle. At the warm part of the cycle there are more and stronger hurricanes and more manage to make a landfall. The Atlantic also acts as a heat sink which the North Atlantic shares its heat gain and release over the northern hemisphere.

Obviously the solar input from the sun impacts the oceans. Yet more variables exist like cloud cover that unbalance the solar input from day to day, not just at sea, but over the whole of the planet. Those unbalances, volcanoes, and a long list of seeming small inputs, the earth’s rotation, and the unbalancing from the earth’s tilt over on its axis drive the weather we curse and enjoy.

The fact is the past thirty years was an optimum climate if such a thing can be said. Globally we have enjoyed warmer temperatures, more rain, and increased CO2. We have more food; our standard of living required less energy than would have been the case in the 1960s and 1970s kind of weather patterns. A cold hard eyed look at the data suggests that the peak warmth was between 1997 and 2002, as we’ve noticeably cooled since then.

That makes three probable indicators for the future. The sun, and two well studied oceans. The indications accounting for the upcoming 80 and 180 solar cycle curves, and a majority of solar cycle prediction methods offer that the sun is calming and calm periods are cool here on earth. NASA’s observations suggest that the 22-year cycle, which looks at the sun’s plasma flows, would predict a bottom cycle at 2022 that may be the quietest in centuries. The Pacific Ocean already shows signs of a decent into a cooler mode. The Atlantic is some years out to circulate a distinct measure of being cooler. Satellite data shows the atmosphere, oceanic and land temperatures have reversed their trends over the past 5 years.

Relative cooling has far greater consequences than a warming. Crop failure, famine, dryness and cold will drive energy prices even higher as we transition into a broader base of energy and fuel resources. Heating requirements, and the ever increasing need for economic growth will require much more investment in energy resources and fuel than current projections. Natural gas, fuel oil, propane and electrical generation are going to become more dearly priced and more human suffering will inevitably come to our society.

How convinced am I?

Fully convinced. It’s the timing and the rate of change that concerns me. The momentum of the global warming issue has nearly fully hidden the actual and the latest facts. Our children and grandchildren will have to make adaptations that are more costly and painful than if we pulled our thoughts out of the global warming sand and looked at the record as it forms. We have failed to recognize a good thing for billions of people and we’ve allowed special interests to hijack politics and our tax dollars, create new costs and expenses for rules and regulations, divert our attention from the important long-term conservation investments, and miss putting the maximum effort into more energy resources and fuel supplies.

An old fellow said a few weeks ago “we’ll be grateful for every bit of the CO2 someday.” Someday, he will be right.

Will you be ready? It’s a big challenge, and with big challenges come big opportunities.

My thanks to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and their “Summary for Policymakers.” It provided me with a succinct guide on writing a blog post that I hope will assist you and protect your family in the years to come.


11 Comments so far

  1. jaquesbernard on May 23, 2009 5:55 PM

    I was just searching around about this when I found your blog post. I’m only visiting to say that I truly enjoyed seeing this post, it is very well written. Are you planning toblog more about this? It looks like there’s more material here for future posts.

  2. NHL Hockey Forum on October 20, 2010 10:09 AM

    This is a wonderful post and may be one that you should followed up to see how things go

    A pal e mailed this link the other day and I’m desperately looking your next post. Carry on on the impressive work.

  3. college grants for women on November 8, 2010 6:54 AM

    nice post. thanks.

  4. conveyancing on November 20, 2010 6:27 AM

    Can I just say what a relief to find someone who actually knows what theyre talking about on the web. You definitely have learned to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I cant believe youre not more popular because you definitely have the gift

  5. Pete Widrick on May 26, 2011 9:31 AM

    I’ve been checking your blog for a while now, seems like everyday I learn something new 🙂 Thanks

  6. Mackenzie Hardridge on September 1, 2011 10:30 PM

    Hello, this is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting in your blog especially on how to determine the topic. keep up the good work.

  7. Carrie Smillie on September 15, 2011 7:14 PM

    I’ve just started off a blog, the knowledge you give on this site has aided me extremely. Thank you for all your time & work.

  8. Conrad Mclaws on September 22, 2011 6:30 PM

    Great read. Thanks for the info!

  9. Chang Welland on October 4, 2011 3:39 AM

    This post makes a lot of sense !

  10. Carly Thorpe on August 6, 2019 3:00 AM

    Hey, there is a broken link in this article, under the anchor text –
    Here is the working link so you can replace it – for policymakers.pdf

  11. Brian Westenhaus on August 6, 2019 7:59 AM

    The page you’re offering is empty too..

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind