Why is clean/green energy the next big thing …

June 26, 2009

and not genetic engineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics or something else that Washington isn’t focusing on? Just asking …

One comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Global Warming: It’s the Sun, Stupid

The main cause of global warming appears to be change in solar activity and change in the earth’s orbit and tilt. Recent reductions in sunspots on the solar surface suggest that we may be entering into a cooling period.

 Humans are responsible for only 2% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions and less than two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year.

 Higher temperatures increase non-human emissions of carbon dioxide from plant-life and the sea.

 More than 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they saw “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.”

 The Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy $100 to $200 billion per year, as estimated by the Clinton Department of Energy.

 Kyoto would restrain temperature increases by less than one degree and delay global warming by only six years.

 Kyoto was rejected by the U.S. Senate 95-0.

 It is very likely that the so-called scientists on the IPCC assumed beforehand that global warming was due to CO2 and then, instead of treating it as a hypothesis, they estimated a simple, incomplete, relationship between temperature change and CO2. A bad model can always be used to provide a desired result.

It is legitimate to recognize that global warming is taking place and will cause significant problems. And few in the U.S. will deny that we should decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East. But some persons think it is heresy to disagree with the view that human activity is the main cause of global warming rather than change in solar activity and change in the earth’s orbit and tilt. Some of them appear to be confused. They do not seem to understand that the debate is not about the fact that global warming is taking place but rather about its major cause. Some may even think, erroneously, that the debate is about whether human activity contributes to emission of greenhouse gases. Others cling to a claim based on a review of 928 studies that there is no controversy that human activity is causing global warming. They seem not to realize that only 2 percent of the 928 studies wholly endorsed that claim and that there were 11,000 studies on the subject that were not examined [see investorsinsight link below].

One should also be careful in studying findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A University of Auckland [New Zealand] paper by C.R. de Freitas says “The UN IPCC’s voice to the public, press and policy makers regarding climate science is through summaries; in particular, the brief, politically approved “Summaries for Policymakers” (SPM), which have become notorious for their bias, tendency to overstate problems and penchant for simplifying and dramatizing scientific speculation”. Nor should one be swayed by the fact that a large number of scientists contributed to the preparation of the IPCC report. In 2000, Professor S. Fred Singer testified to the U.S. Senate that more than 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they saw “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.” Furthermore, recent reductions in sunspots on the solar surface suggest that we may be entering into a cooling period.

The exact nature of the model that the so-called scientists on IPCC used to investigate the role of CO2 is not clear. It is very likely that they assumed beforehand that global warming was due to CO2 and then, instead of treating it as a hypothesis, estimated a simple, incomplete relationship between temperature change and CO2. As experienced modellers know, one can always use a bad model to provide a desired result.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming should reveal the specific quantitative relationship [or relationships] that displays temperature as a function of CO2, and also indicate the estimation technique and the nature and source of the data that were used to establish the relationship. Modeling the causes of global warming requires use of a comprehensive data series and a complete and logical set of explanatory variables including measures of solar activity and indicators of the earth’s orbit and tilt. Carbon dioxide concentration by itself is an inadequate explanatory variable, especially in view of the fact that higher temperatures increase non-human emissions of carbon dioxide from plant-life and the sea.

Persons who are eager to place predominant blame on mankind for global warming often specialize in personal attacks on those who have an opposing view. For example, they promulgate smears that dissenting scientists are bribed by energy producers such as “Big Oil”. People who want to know the facts should seriously study websites such as http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ag es.html, http://www.friendsofscience.org/ [prepared by an international group of sixty professors and scientists], http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/ [chaired by Sir Ian Byatt, a distinguished British Civil Servant], an EPA site http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science  /stateofknowledge.html, and the 2008 report: S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008.

For a broad overview they should read “The politics of global warming” – an interview by Bill Steigerwald of the Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, in the February 10, 2007 Pittsburgh, PA Tribune. They should be dismissive of attempts by entities with a political agenda to smear Dr. Ball. Persons with a background in science should read the critique of the climate change modelling process by Warren Meyer (A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to anthropogenic global warming); and examine http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ Persons with a background in science and economics should read the scathing analysis of the IPCC and Stern reports by a British panel of fourteen independent expert scientists and economists at http://www.fcpp.org

They should consider whether it is wise to impose huge costs on consumers by adopting the Kyoto protocols for very little gain. [Kyoto would cost the U.S. economy $100 to $200 billion per year, as estimated by the Clinton Department of Energy, and restrain temperature increases by less than one degree. That is equivalent to delaying global warming by only six years]. Kyoto was rejected by the U.S. Senate 95-0.

They should pay particular attention to the Friends of Science website which shows a close relationship between temperature anomaly and the length of sunspot cycles, but a very weak relationship between temperature anomaly and concentration of carbon dioxide. Recent reductions in sunspots on the solar surface suggest that we may be entering into a cooling period. And, in his movie, even Al Gore seems to be aware that tilt of the Northern Hemisphere towards the sun leads to global warming because of its greater land mass. The geocraft website explains the effect of cyclical eccentricities in the earth’s rotation and orbit.

Furthermore, on the basis of U.S. Department of Energy data, J. DuHamel in his paper, Climate Change in Perspective, noted “that humans are responsible for 2% to 5% of total CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume; therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents less than two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year”.

Some persons seem eager to place predominant blame on mankind for global warming. When they have studied issues more closely perhaps they will be outraged by the temerity of the sun to change its activity and the earth to alter it’s orbit and tilt.

Professor William McKillop
1824 Countrywood Court
Walnut Creek CA 94598
Phone: 925-938-6720

Posted by William McKillop | Report as abusive