Memories of the 28th Century

When I saw the article "Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models" (http://www.mpg.de/8925360/climate-ch...rming-slowdown pub. January 15, 2015) published by the Max Planck Institute, I knew that I had to reply, because there are major systematic errors in the models and in the assumptions behind the models. Regular scientists make hypotheses based on observations and they test the hypotheses to determine whether they fit the observations. If the hypotheses don't fit the observations, then there is a very good chance that the hypotheses are wrong, and the scientist goes back to square one. In the last few months it has become clear that the hypotheses do not fit the real world. That should mean that the scientists have to look at their assumptions, and they might want to look at related science.

One of the most fundamental assumptions related to climate change is that increasing atmospheric CO2 would result in more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. This is something that was investigated a few decades ago by the Office of Naval Research, a department of the U.S. Navy, and the results were published in 1978 (and other years) as The Infrared Handbook by William L. Wolfe and George J. Zissis. Among the many items in the book is the fact that measurements made of infrared radiation in the absorption band of CO2 showed that 100% of the infrared radiation in the CO2 absorption band was absorbed within 300 meters. That means that there was no other radiation available for additional CO2 to absorb, even if the level of CO2 were doubled the additional CO2 couldn't absorb any more of the IR, because it had already been absorbed. As far as I am concerned that killed the argument that CO2 from human activity has caused climate change, so I won't go into that rise in CO2 having followed the rise in temperature.

But that doesn't mean that I don't think there has been change in climate. I just disagree as to the mechanism for the change. It has been accepted for some time that the Sun's sunspot cycle is related to climate. The science is not as certain as the absorption of infrared radiation, but it appears to be reliable; it fits the data, and the theory of why also fits the data, as far as the data goes. There is no doubt that during sunspot maxima the Sun's output in the UV range increases. The Earth's ozone layer interacts with and captures the UV, but the matter of transferring that energy from the upper stratosphere to the troposphere is not as certain.

Regardless of the mechanism, the Sun is a variable star. The question is how variable. Some sources say the Sun is variable only by a fraction of one percent, while other sources estimate the variability at two percent. If the solar radiation hitting the Earth varies by two percent, then the peaks and valleys would explain variation in surface temperatures over the centuries. And people have temperatures versus sunspot activity, and found a close correlation.

NASA has done work on the Sun's variability. The page on that gives 0.1% as the percent variability, but that works out to 0.24 Watts/m2, and that is a significant amount of energy.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...010/05feb_sdo/ There is a graph of the measured output, and the variability has dramatically decreased in recent decades, which is interesting, but whether it is significant is open to question.

One website I found that appears to be dedicated to the history of "global warming" has an article on the variability of the Sun. "Changing Sun, Changing Climate?" http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm There is a graph of solar radiation as measured by satellites (scroll to the bottom). It appears that the Earth has been getting a little less in the last few years. There also is a graph of sunspot activity for several cycles; this was not combined with the solar radiation graph, but it should have been; the peaks and valleys generally coincide.

I have been looking at the matter of climate change for a few decades. I didn't pay any attention to the matter for the first decade, or so, because I was getting over the disappointment that there wasn't going to be an ice age starting. I started wondering about the claims regarding global warming. Soon after I started looking into global warming/climate change it became clear that there was no actual science involved. The claims that were alleged to be based on science were inaccurate and did not agree with known facts. I thought they should rethink their hypotheses. Since then I have seen climate change alarmists repeat non-scientific claims, accuse people who questioned them of denying science, and so on. There is climate change, but it has little to do with what has been reported in the general press or forth by buffoons, such as Al Gore.

I strongly recommend that readers look at the articles that I posted links to, and look at the Infrared Handbook, if you get a chance. All of the information that I have cited is available, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been put together before. I have simply repeated well known science about infrared absorption, sunspots, and solar variability.

By the way, the present sunspot cycle is the weakest in a long time, and that may mean that there will be climate change that will include lower temperatures. We will see.