Global warming, my $1.02

First off, I want to explain my perspective: I think that the current climate change stuff that we're hearing is yet another form of millenialism/end of the world cult. You'll note that there are all of the aspects of religion: an Eden-like utopia, a fall from grace/original sin vis-a-vis industrialization/capitalism; sins: driving large cars, conspicious consumption; indulgences: carbon credits, even more expensive "hybrid" cars, "whole" foods, "fair" trade. You've also your heros and villains. Worse than this, we've seen both sides of this before. In the 1920's it was global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. Clearly what is old is new again, and demonstrates that the current degree of panic is unwarranted.

Next, I want to make it clear that I'm very much a conservationist. I like the outdoors, I like it to be clean and for it to be a nice place for me to go visit with my backpack and camera. I'm all for more efficient power stations, cars, solar and wind power production. I am not for using lies, non predictive models, and phony statistics to try to increase taxes, trash the economy, and otherwise change the economic world as we know it.

And finally, I'm not arguing against climate change. The climate is not -- and never has been -- a static thing. Rather it is a highly dynamic system subject to peroidic
changes. It is my belief that the climate has been changing throughout our history, including in modern times and that it is due for additional (possibly dramatic) changes right now as the sun prepares to change operating modes.

A major component of what people are concerning themselves with is CO2 concentration and warming impact via greenhouse effect. There is a major problem with that, namely that CO2 heat absorbsion has not been correctly accounted for in most models. Better explained here. This is important because bad assumptions result in bad data. Why does this matter? Doubling the amount of CO2 does NOT lead to a doubling of greenhouse efffect from Co2. Once the CO2 band is saturated, you're done. Adding more to the system will not alter the warming impact. One issue with Hug's statement is that he didn't publish the reradiation data, however, this experiment can be readily reproduced if someone can get their hands on an appropriate spectrometer. A friend of mine and I are willing to spend some money on funding this experiment if someone can help us obtain access to an appropriate spectrometer for a price we can afford. Anyhow, backing data for this is here (I paid to read the paper) noting that high atmospheric temperatures have not shown the warming effect that current models require.

Why have I harped so much about CO2? It is the necessary and proper link that people have been using to try to demonstrate that humanity is causing global warming. This is despite the reality that we're responsible for about 3% of atmospheric CO2 if you accept the worst case numbers. So, if CO2 has been saturated, and we add another 3% to the mix, it just didn't make a difference to warming. If CO2 wasn't saturated, then we could merely take the warming effect to the saturation level, which is far less than what people are claiming.Finally, I'll wrap up this portion of my rant with this paper which again shows that CO2 is not a major component in our warming system.

One also needs to take into account the reality that stars are variable. People have been saying this for a long time, and there are strong data showing high degrees of correlation between the sun and our climate. Why is this important? Historically, temperatures have varied in even and odd centuries, with the even ones being warm, odd ones being cold (19th: cold, 20th: warm, etc). The data suggest that either the effect is slow moving, or the oceans act as a large thermal battery resulting in several decades for the effects to take place (e.g. the bottom of the coming "cold" period is likely to be mid 21st century).

Next, something important that folks should be aware of. We'll let the BBC explain this "temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 " You can argue I'm cherry picking the quote, but the data are incontrovertible: temperatures have been flat since 1998; I'm deliberately choosing a source which has bought into the hysteria.

Why is this important? If this guy and all of the other astrophysicists which have been worrying about a new solar minimum are correct, then we're going to wish for global warming. It is much easier for us to technically handle a 1-4 degree C warming
which opens new areas up for food production, reduces the amount of heating we need to sustain life in colder regions. Whereas, a global drop in temperature will require us to more efficiently produce food in a shorter growing season with less arable land, and simultaneously allocate more resources towards heating our residences and workplaces.

This isn't to say I think it will be a catastrophe (we survived the last go 'round with less knowledge and technology), but that I think we're barking up the wrong tree. We should take the trillions of dollars that we're throwing at the climate disaster mongers and instead invest in infrastructure to provide clean and safe drinking water for everyone, passable roads for the areas which lack them, and electrification for the regions lacking it. That, literally, is doable with the same amount of money that the catastrophe people want to spend to "address" global warming.