The Real Force Behind Climate Change? Global-warming alarmists ignore the a power of the Sun's influence on our climate.by Ed Hiserodt arbon dioxide, that little molecul¢ _ Sst can aoa two oxygen atoms, is a modery- day environmental criminal. Its crime trapping the Sun’s heat in the Earth’s at) ‘mosphere, potentially causing catastrophic global warming that will destroy all life on Earth, It’s so bad that the United Na- tions Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) officially labeled it a pol- Tutant in 2009. Humans, especially those living in wealthy Western countries, are said to be co-conspirators in the climate- change crime, since they release those criminal molecules into the atmosphere every day via industrial activity. Atleast, that’s the story wi told for the past few decades. But before ‘we charge anyone (or anything) with de- stroying the Earth’s environment, it would be wise to do a little more detective work to gather al the available evidence. In the following article, we'll do just that eralert: We'll dustrial activity have been falsely accused. ‘The evidence points to the Sun, not COs, as likely being the main driver of climate change, and that climate per- fectly natural phenomenon. Before we get into the details of how solar activity helps drive the Earth’s cli- mate, let’s take some time to briefly look at the “COs drives climate” argument and ‘examine why it’s wrong. Falsely Accused The increase in atmospheric CO; concen- tration over the last century and a half from slightly under 300 parts per million (ppm), or 0.03 percent of the Earth’s at- mosphere, to around 400 ppm, or 0.04 percent, is blamed for the observed warm- ing of the Earth's average temperature ‘over that time period. Further, the fact that human industrial activity also increased ‘dramatically over that same period seems to justify claims that the increase in CO> levelsiis caused by humans. Ego, humans are causing climate change. “Climate scientists” often throw around terms such as CO» forcing, sensitivity, positive feedback loop, tipping point, and reenhouse when attempting to explain the supposedly disastrous effects, of CO, on our planet. Their argument vw. TheNewsAmerican com goes something like this: Atmospheric COs concentration increases because of human industrial emissions; this is known as “CO» forcing.” Because of the climate’s high “sensitivity” to COs, this “forcing” will cause the Earth to warm, owing to the greenhouse effect. This will cause changes to the Earth, such as melting ice sheets, ete., which will lower the Earth’s albedo (ie, cause less sunlight to be re- flected back into space), which will further ‘warm the Earth in sort of a vicious eycle of global warming, This cycle is known as a “positive feedback loop.” Once the atmospheric COs concentration reaches a certain level, the Earth’s climate will have reached a “tipping point” where, owing to positive feedback loops, a “run- away greenhouse” is inevitable, meaning the planet will essentially be destroyed or at least made uninhabitable, and nothing could be done to stop this. “Climate entists” such as Bill MeKibben, founder of 350.org, say that we should keep atmo- spheric CO, levels at 350 ppm or lower in order to avoid any untoward effects. Since ady at 400 ppm, it sounds like we're in big trouble — meaning humans must make immediate and drastic cuts to CO; emissions in order to stave off certain doom, and we might already be too late. Well, not so fast. First ofall, the warm- ing effect of increased CO, concentrations is logarithmic, not linear. What does this Glimate-change criminal? Many ‘scientists’ warn that industrial CO» emissions will cause Catastrophic global warming, but CO, makes up a tiny fraction of Earth's atmosphere, and only a tiny fraction ofthat is from human activity. Carbon dioxide concentrations have been many times higher inthe past, andthe Earth suffered no harm.400 Years of Sunspot Observations Maunder * Minimum 1600 1700 ‘mean? The best analogy is that of blan- kets on a cold winter night: The first one is a godsend, the second stops the shiver- ing, and the third brings peaceful comfort, But by the time you pile on the ninth or 10th blanket, the effect is imperceptible Likewise with CO: While the Earth temperature could be expected to rise by one degre Celyipipprefndutsamne, tf; ime Sel Regs Teena per that would aS be dytcdeg fo another doubling. Evience for this cP be seen in temperature reconstructions done by paleoclimatologists. Using a commonly : Se crm tions of past chmates place CO; levels between 1,000-2,000 ppm for much of the Earth’s history, with levels sometimes reaching as high as 4,000 ppm. So was the planet fried to a crisp? No! Reconstruc- tions place mean surface temperatures, at most, at 7° Celsius higher than today’s lev- els — so much for runaway global warm- ing caused by CO, crossing some soon-to- be achieved “tipping point.” 1750 1800 1850 1900 What's more, there’s not even a strong correlation in more recent times between temperatures and CO> levels. Most data reveal that temperature drives CO» levels, not the other way around. Case in point Inthe late 1800s, the Earth started coming ‘out of a cold period known as the Little Ice Age that began around 1500. Atmo- ic CO concentrations did not start ng until after this warming trend began, and didn’t really start taking off until the mid 20th century. So how ean watming cause CO, levels to increase, and not the other way around? Put sim- ply, as the Earth warms, the oceans warm up. Water maintains its temperature better than air, so the oceans will warm up more slowly. Warm water holds less CO, so as the oceans finally warm, they off-gas COs into the atmosphere. Understanding this solves a major problem: Computer models used by “cli- mate scientists” to predict climate as- sume CO. is the driver of temperature increases, but the observed temperatures are always lower than what the models Suggest to climate alarmists that the Sun may in fact be a primary driver of climate change, and you will likely get the dismissive retort: Weve already considered that and found it insignificant.” Actually they are right, in a way 2 Modern. ra Maximum 70 g } 200'€ 5 1502 6 100 & | a < itso 5 1950 2000 Fewer sunspots, lower temperatures: There is definite correlation between sunspot numbers and temperatures. The Maunder and Dalton Minimums, which coincide with the Little Ice ‘Age, ae clearly visible on the graph above. had predicted, Increases in CO) levels have not caused an increase in tempera- ture anywhere near predictions. The Sep- tember 2017 edition of the prestigious Nature Geoscience journal contained an ‘admission that, as the London Times put it, “We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede.” According to the Times, “The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were ‘on the hot side’ and over- stated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has foun Here Comes the Sun Suggest to climate alarmists that the Sun may in fact be a primary driver of cli- mate change, and you will likely get the dismissive retort: “We've already consid- ered that and found it insignificant.” Actu- ally, they are righ, in away. In @ universe where there are variable stars that pulse at thousands of times per second, our Sun is a model of constancy. Solar output var- THE NEW AMERICAN # JANUARY 22, 2018