Texas 87th Legislature

Chapter 9 – Computer Model Predictions

By Michael Belsick

Everything previously mentioned leads us to a discussion on computers, computer programming, and using computers to make climate predictions.  To start, I must begin the discussion by saying that many people give far more credit to computers than what computers deserve.  That is mainly because most people don’t understand computers and how they can do what they do for us.

Computers are not “all knowing”.  They only know what they have been programmed to know.  As such, Artificial Intelligence is still in its infancy.  While computers have beaten chess masters, it could be said that the computers “cheated”.  By that I mean that for every movement that the chess master makes, the computer can almost instantaneously calculate the next logical move that the chess master will make by running thousands of simulations in seconds.  If you remember the 1983 movie called “War Games” with Matthew Broderick, the teenager saves the world by having the computer that controls all US nuclear missiles play tic-tac-toe with itself millions of times, eventually “learning” that tic-tac-toe is a game that can never be won.  The point that I am making is that the computer’s advantage over man is not yet intelligence. It is the ability to perform repetitive calculations over and over again in an instant.

When I type a word that is misspelled, the computer instantly makes suggestions based upon how I misspelled the word.  The computer does not really know what word I meant to use.  How many times has the computer accepted “form” instead of replacing it with “from”? When anyone types a question for Google to answer, the computer identifies key words in that question and looks for the closest reference that human programmers entered in its database.  In a way, a computer is like a librarian.  When you walk into a library wanting a book, but you are not sure of the title or author, the librarian will search the card catalog (old school) for something close to what you described.  Computers do the exact same thing by making the closest suggestion that match what programmers entered.  For another example, if you typed a question, such as Hank Aaron’s batting average, Goggle will reply instantly because human programmers entered that data. In fact, not only do you get the answer to what you asked, but Google also offers other options that you may want. However, if you meant Hank Aaron, who is your barber but was a high school baseball varsity player, Google will not provide the information that you seek.

One disadvantage of computers is that the computer’s response is based upon the knowledge and bias of the programmer.  During my research into this climate change series of articles, I used Google periodically.  Generally, the first responses supported the notion of man-made climate change.  The answer that I was interested in was after page 6 or so.  In some cases, Google circled back to the responses on page 1.  The computer itself had no bias, but the programmer did.

When man-made climate change believers tell you that computers are predicting a climate change catastrophe in 12 years, be very skeptical because those computers are basing that prediction on only what programmers input.  In college when I learned and used programming, there was a “golden rule” – “garbage in equals garbage out”.  Just to provide a whimsical example, I could use a computer to prove that all Democrats are lying.  I would have a computer monitor the mouth motions of a Democratic politician.  If I programmed the computer such that every time a mouth opened, a lie was stated, then the computer would calculate that the Democratic politician lied repeatedly.  So, any computer prediction is only as valid as the programming that was used.

Climate prediction programs are extremely complex. Although computers are capable of calculating a lot of different scenarios quickly, there is still limitation on how long it will take or the size of a model for realistic purposes. When mechanical engineers, who specialize in mechanical stress analysis, want to analyze what happens when a mechanical part is subjected to external mechanical loads, they build a computer model of the part.  Engineers build a 3-dimensional model of that part with maybe a thousand or more “node” points.  Each “node” point might be considered as the center block with sticks connecting it to other center blocks as in a 3-dimensional tinker toy.  Each node is linked mechanically to all adjacent nodes (up, down, and to each side).

Once the model is built, it is then programmed with how these nodes will interact on each other based on what the programmer thinks will occur. Another programming complexity is deciding which data and algorithms should be used. It is not possible to provide every possible interaction so programmers make assumptions and simplifications.  Most times programmers try to make valid assumptions and not show bias but as knowledge is gained, assumptions may need to be changed. At one time all of mankind knew that the sun revolved around the Earth… Algorithms are often simplified because it would either take too long to compute or we haven’t figured out exactly what happens

Take for example the landing gear of a jumbo jet simulating a “hard” landing. An impact load comparable to a “hard” landing is applied to the generated model. That impact force into the wheel is transferred to the landing gear, then travels to each node within the landing gear model, and finally exits the landing gear at the attachment point to the wing or fuselage.  If that shared impact load at any of these node points exceeds the mechanical properties of the material, then the part fails.  Design engineers, like me, would then need to redesign the landing gear to use a stronger metal alloy or to add more metal to the failed area such that there would be more node points to share this impact load.  The computer model is remade, and the program is run again until the model does not fail. If the interaction of the nodes is incorrectly assumed or the wrong material properties (ex., aluminum) are input into the model, the “behavior” of the landing gear will not represent the actual landing gear.

So, how is anything that I just said relevant to a climate change computer model?  Imagine the number of nodes and types of interactions required to represent the entire Earth. There are a lot of unknowns about climate parameters and interaction so assumptions and simplified algorithms must be made.

My landing gear was a relatively small part, maybe 4 feet long, with a thousand or more node points and might take an hour to run.  How would you analyze the entire Earth?  Your options would be to wait a couple of years while the computer runs the analysis or you would have to drastically increase the distance between node points.  That is exactly what climate change computer analysts have done.  Where my landing gear node may have been a cube of 0.1 inch in all directions, the climate change node likely would have to be a cube 10 to 100 miles in all directions.  So, to construct a model for the current computing capability computer could run the analysis in a reasonable amount of time, the climate change programmer had to have a node size so huge, that a significant sized thunder storm could run through the node without indicating any weather change at all. That represents the failure of climate change computer models to construct a model so monstrous in size that it is incapable to registering any minute weather or temperature changes. There is a significant limitation to any computer program trying to analyze something as large as the Earth.

In Chapter 6, I mentioned that clouds and their aerosol components play a major role in climate study. Yet, cloud behavior is usually ignored in climate models which are focused only on the CO2 concentration because it is easier.

For a final comment on computer modeling, the standard process for all programming is to run the model for a situation that is known to see if it properly predicts the known outcome.  This is called validating the model.  One writes the program, inputs the various values for the computer to calculate all the answers.  Then you compare the answers provided by the computer to the known results.  If the predicted values match the known values, then your model has been validated.  This is an important “proof” that the model will accurately predict the outcome.  To date, no climate model has ever successfully been validated.  This means that the computer program cannot even predict values that are known.  If that is the case, then how can the results of these climate predictions be considered definitive? As I previously said, “garbage in equals garbage out”.

In all the previous chapters, we have learned that there are many different natural forces that can affect the average Earth temperature.  Orbital mechanics can greatly affect how much solar energy reaches Earth by changing the distance that the energy had to travel.  While this can create significant differences, the normal time period of events is in the thousands of years.  The exception is Nutation which briefly shifts the rocking and swaying of tilt angle that happens about every 18.6 years.  We are safe for now.  On a much smaller time period, we learned that El Nino can affect the weather over just a few years.  However, climate scientists seemingly only want to focus on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  There are many other natural factors with greater potential for change than man-made carbon dioxide.  If climate predictions are only based upon atmospheric CO2, which is increasing, and that increased CO2 equates to increased temperature, then all these computer programs will certainly predict warmer Earth temperatures.  Additionally, if the programmers purposely omitted some information, the predicted results would be biased.  There really is another side to this debate.  In fact, there are many climate scientists that do not believe that a small change of CO2 has the power to cause global warming.

The most important question to address now has to do with why these man-made climate change scientists are so convinced and very vocal that any climate change is due to man-made CO2.  With that, I would like to end this chapter and go into the next chapter with a quote from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) which will be referenced again in the next chapter.  The quote below also summarizes what this chapter taught us.

GCMs (Global Climate Models) are complex, three-dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric circulation.  Uncertainties in our understanding of climate process, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the CGMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of climate.”

Chapter 8 – Summary of the Variables Capable of Changing Earth’s Temperature

By Michael Belsick

Just as a pre-summary, I thought that it would be prudent to summarize all the variables discussed so far that can affect the weather or climate.

We learned that the sun is our only source of life-giving heat to our Planet Earth.  However, the orbit and the rotation of the Earth on its axis can and does change over time such that the sun’s solar energy can be greater or smaller.  These changes in solar energy will cause global ice ages about every 100,000 years.  Precession and tilt have periods of 24,000 years and 41,000 years respectively.  Currently, the Earth is in an interglacial period meaning that we have nice warm weather to enjoy for still thousands of years.  The main point of this fact is to say that climate change is real.  It has been this way for millions of years.  However, it is not as man-made climate change believers want you to understand.

We learned that the Earth’s energy budget accepts all the sun’s energy that shines on Earth and eventually releases it all back into space after bouncing it around the atmosphere to keep us warm at night.  The greenhouse gases, with water vapor having more significant impact than carbon dioxide, is primary responsible for this.  Anthropogenic climate change believers are telling us that man-made CO2 is trapping more energy causing the Earth to warm unnaturally.  However, it was also shown that the Earth has only changed temperature 1.4 degree F since 1850 and there seems to be no proof that this was due to CO2.

We learned that the Earth has its own heating and ventilation system, that doesn’t generate heat or cold, but rather moves heat and cold around the globe.  Natural forces generate wind and ocean currents that move this heat or cold around.  While people often like this change, there are times when people do not.  One example of these unfavorable times is the Santa Ana winds in California that turn a small brush fire into a raging forest fire.

Water vapor in the form of clouds has a significant impact on solar radiation which affects the Earth’s temperature.  All the climate predictions from man-made climate change believers ignore the very significant impact that clouds (water vapor – the major component of greenhouse gases) have on temperature because it is too complicated.



Chapter 7 – The Difference Between “Weather” and “Climate”

By Michael Belsick


Weather is the normal pattern of hot/cold, wet/dry, and calm/windy that we are used to experiencing during the year and seasons.  If it happens to be 1 degree warmer than what you remember, then you have not lived long enough to understand or appreciate normal weather variability.  Climate is the general term used to describe the normal weather patterns, including minor extremes that may occur at regular intervals, during all seasons for a particular location and for a period of time of 30 years or more.  In other words, a record setting warm day, a little less ice in the Arctic, the size of a glacier, one heavy rain fall causing flooding, or a more destructive hurricane than normal does not represent a climate change event.  Minor weather changes from memory does not rise to the level of a climate change event unless it continues for 30 years or more.  Here are some facts to counter the claims from anthropogenic climate change believers:

Temperature Increase

Man-made climate change believers tell us that the Earth is getting hotter.  They blame man-made CO2 emissions increasing the greenhouse gases trapping more heat from escaping the Earth.

    • From 1850 to 1940, the global average temperature rose by 1.04 degrees F when CO2 levels were lower than today.
    • From 1940 to 1970, the temperature declined by 0.36 degrees F. (There was concern of a pending ice age.)
    • From approximately 1975 to 1997, the average temperature increased by 0.72 degrees F.
    • From 1997 to 2016, there has been no change at all in the global average temperature.
    • As a recap, here are the average global temperatures in degrees F:

o             1850:  56.6 (beginning of the industrialized revolution)

o             1940:  57.64

o             1970/1975:  57.28

o             1997:  58.0

o             2016:  58.0

    • 25% of human emitted CO2 occurred 1850-1940 with a global average temperature rise of 1.04 degree F
    • 75% of human emitted CO2 occurred 1940-2016 with global average temperature rise of 0.36 degrees F
    • 1/3 of human emitted CO2 occurred during 1997-2016 with NO temperature change

If you recall the graph of Earth temperature and CO2 concentrations, both have gone up and down for the past 800,000 years.  The industrial revolution started, in only a few countries at first, in 1850.  CO2 concentrations have been climbing steadily since then due to man-made production.  However, if you look at the temperature data above, which is documented, global temperature rose by 1.04 degree F by 1940, but then declined by 0.36 degree F for the next 30 years as industrialization ramped up.  After 166 years of industrialization, the average Earth temperature rose by only 1.4 degree F.  If your household thermostat changed by 1.4 degree F, would you even notice it?  Also, there is no absolute proof that increased CO2 caused this temperature rise.  From 1940 to 1970, temperature dropped as CO2 increased.  From 1997 to 2016 when more CO2 entered the atmosphere, there was no temperature change at all.  How could anyone claim with certainty that CO2 concentrations drive temperature changes when the data does not support that?

Melting Ice Caps

Anthropogenic climate change believers are telling us that man-made climate change is melting the polar ice caps. The left picture in Figure 28 is the first satellite photo of the Arctic Ice Cap. It was taken in 1979 which happened to capture the Arctic Ice Cap at its peak.  Clearly, in twenty years there is less Arctic Polar ice, shown in the photo on the right.  What was the ice coverage before 1979? According to written documentation (ships logs instead of satellite imagery) there was less ice.  Polar ice levels go up and down constantly.  With CO2 levels rising since 1850, how is the increase of ice between 1940 and 1979 (shown in Figure 29) explained?

Figure 28. Northern Ice Cap

No one is offering a suggestion.  Maybe there are more things going on that are unrelated to CO2 concentrations such as what was mentioned in Chapter 3 regarding the Milankovitch Cycles pushing warmer water into the Arctic in 2006.

 Figure 29. Polar Ice Caps

As an interesting footnote, when climate researchers sailed to Antarctica to measure the melting ice at the southern pole, their ship got stuck in the expanding ice fields in January 2014 (summer in the southern hemisphere).  The researchers had to be rescued by a large plane that landed on the floating ice fields.  While ice may (or may not be significantly changing) in the Arctic, ice has been increasing in the Antarctic for some time.  How would worldwide global warming only affect the Arctic and not the Antarctic?


Like the disappearing polar ice in the Arctic, man-made climate change believers claim that glaciers across the world are diminishing due to man-made global warming.  Figure 30 is the first ever photograph of the Lyell Glacier in 1883 and then again in 2013.  Believers claim that this melting is due to man-made climate change. Conversely, geologists know that Yosemite Valley in California was carved out by eons of glacier activity.    Scientists agree that almost all the glacier activity in Yosemite ended 10,000 years ago.  So, massive glacier reduction 10,000 years ago was natural but minor glacier reduction is due to man?  This seems farfetched.

 Figure 30. Lyell Glacier

Rain and Floods


Figure 31. High Water Marks in Passau, Germany

Not only do man-made climate change believers tell us that we are creating deserts, but we are also flooding areas more than ever before.  If one looks at any geological map around a known creek or river, you will find lines parallel to the water flow indicating the possible flooding that can occur within these bounds due to a “100-year flood”.  Geologists know that any waterway can flood during highly unusual large rain totals.  So, they indicate this info on geological survey maps.  If someone builds a house within a 100-year flood plain, they really should not be surprised when their house is flooded even if they are not old enough to have ever seen a 100-year flood at this location.

Still, man-made climate change believers will tell you that recent higher levels of CO2 are increasing the threat of known floods.  In Europe where stone buildings have lasted hundreds of years, it is easy to see the high-water marks on buildings near rivers.  Sure enough, there is a stone building in Passau, Germany showing a high-level mark over 6 feet up from the ground indicating the “climate change” flood of 2002, shown in Figure 31.  However, the flood of 1501 was about 5 feet higher than the one in 2002.  How could man-made industrialization cause flooding in 1501?  By the way, I took the photo when I was there on vacation earlier this year.  As we traveled along the Danube River, there were plenty of other buildings showing the same thing.








We are told that hurricanes are getting more frequent and more devastating.  Sadly, most of the information online tells you how hurricanes are getting more destructive instead of telling you the raw facts about the number and category of hurricane strengths.  With people building homes and businesses in locations frequently damaged by hurricanes and the fact that repair costs always go up, a criterion of “devastation” does not tell you if there are more hurricanes or stronger hurricanes than normal.  If a bull escapes and breaks into a small-town grocery store doing $1000 worth of damage but then breaks into the store next store selling Waterford crystal doing $100,000 worth of damage, did the bull get bigger?  The information shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33 provides the most honest answer to this question.  (Sorry for charts not showing recent hurricanes.  I had to go several pages deep in Google to find anything that did not only address hurricanes in terms of destructive costs.)

  Figure 32. US Hurricane Strikes by Decade

 Figure 33. Global Hurricane Strikes

As one looks at the global and the US data, there is no significant increase in trend in the number of hurricanes or intensity during the time when man-made CO2 concentrations were on a constant rise.  I don’t doubt that total hurricane damage is getting more expensive but it is due to cost reasons, not man-made higher levels of CO2 causing stronger hurricanes.


Just like the total number and strength of hurricanes do not increase due to man-made climate change, US tornados have also not gotten any worse in recent years, as shown in Figure 34.

 Figure 34. US Count of Strong to Violent Tornadoes (F3+), 1954 through 2014

Ocean Levels Rising

We are told that ocean levels will rise 4 feet within the next century.  While anyone can predict anything that they want, current ocean levels are rising 1.4 millimeters per year (0.055 inches per year or 4.4 inches at the current rate after 80 years) as measured by satellites.  At that rate, in 12 years when man-made climate change is supposedly irreversible and cataclysmic, the oceans will have risen 0.66 inches from today.  That will hardly flood all of Florida or even come anywhere close to President Obama’s new ocean front home.


This chapter discussed claims of rising temperatures, melting ice caps (Arctic and Antarctic), river flooding and hurricanes that supposedly per man-made climate change believers are all getting much worse due to man-made CO2.  Honest real data does not support any claim or possible future predictions.

    • Since 1850, temperatures have gone up and down but only risen 1.4 degrees F total.
    • Currently, Arctic ice is slowly melting but written records indicate that ice levels increase and decrease normally. As for the Antarctic, ice levels are building.
    • Glaciers are slowly melting, but they have been doing this for thousands of years, which is long before man-made CO2 production.
    • Flooding is a normal event. Comparatively, the Passau flood in the year 1501 was significantly worse than the most recent 2002 flood.
    • There has been no observable increase of frequency or intensity of hurricanes since 1851. The cost of hurricane damage has been increasing but that is not due to man-made climate change.
    • There have been no significant changes in quantity or severity of tornados.
    • Ocean levels are currently rising 0.055 inches per year. That is hardly going to flood any coastal population in the near term.

Chapter 6b – The Earth’s Heating and Ventilation System

By Michael Belsick



Two of the most important and least understood elements in climate studies are the effects of clouds and aerosols.  (Aerosols are minute solid and liquid matter such as smoke particles from fires or ash from volcanos, ocean spray, or microscopic specks of wind-blown soil; not the layman’s definition of something sprayed from a can or bottle like hairspray.)  All cloud droplets have a speck of dirt, dust, or salt crystal at their core.  Without aerosol particles, there would be no clouds.  Two clouds having identical altitudes, thickness and water content can have very different effects on the climate due to the particular aerosol(s) content.  The type of aerosol can also affect the cloud albedo, which affects the reflectivity of solar radiation.  Generally, low thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the Earth surface.  High thin clouds are primarily transparent to incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth thereby warming the surface.

The size of the cloud droplet that makes up the clouds resulting from the properties of the particular aerosol(s) has a huge impact on the reflection ability (albedo) and precipitation.  Fewer aerosols (cleaner air), results in more droplets per aerosol particle such that each droplet contains more water.  This produces dark clouds with heavy droplets that precipitate (rain) and therefore are shorter lasting and have relatively low albedo.  More aerosols (higher polluted air) have the opposite effect.  They have fewer water droplets per aerosol particle resulting in larger, brighter more reflective clouds (high albedo) that are longer lasting since they do not produce rain.

Clouds contribute more (25%) to the greenhouse effect than CO2 (20%).  Of the total amount of CO2, only 5% is human caused, so 1% of the greenhouse gas is attributed to humans, or clouds contribute 25 times more than human caused CO2!

Here are some quotes by some climate scientists:

    • Vahrenholt and Luning: “Whatever controls the clouds, rules the climate.”
    • Voiland: “Just a 5% increase in cloud reflectivity could compensate for the entire increase in greenhouse gases from the modern industrial era in the global average.”
    • Plimer: “A 1% change in cloudiness could account for all 20th century warming.”
    • R John Holdren (President Obama’s science advisor): “…a mere one percent increase in cloud cover would decrease a surface temperature by 0.8 degree C (1.4 degree F).”

The bottom line is that clouds are generally understood but it is difficult to write a computer program for clouds unless one can calculate the aerosol component for each cloud.  As such, many climate scientists ignore clouds and focus only on CO2 concentrations because that is much easier.

The Oceans

Figure 19 shows the Walker Cell, operating along the equator and about 300 miles on both sides of the equator.   The Walker Cell moves air in the east/west direction.  (If you recall the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar Cells move air primarily in the north/south direction.  The Walker Cell overlaps the Hadley Cell with the two affecting 1/3 of the globe.)  The Walker Cell Trade Winds pushes the surface water in the same direction of the wind.  Because there is a land mass stopping the surface water current, there is a build-up (higher elevation) of water at one end of the ocean “bowl”.   The build-up of water forces the deeper water to travel in the opposite direction, creating an opposite rotation of water flow as the air flow.

Figure 19. Walker Cell (East-West Currents)

Just like the Earth’s rotation moves air westerly around the globe, the oceans react the same way, as shown in Figure 20.  The main difference is that the ocean currents are restricted by land masses.  When the Panama isthmus was created by plate tectonics, the ocean current from the Atlantic to the Pacific was shut off.  The red lines below represent warmer water; blue lines represent colder water.

Figure 20. Ocean Currents

Figure 21. Depths of the Oceans and the Zones

The Trade Winds and the ocean currents are not constant at or near the equator.  Every 3 to 7 years the Walker Cell and the Trade Winds change intensity and even direction; this is called El Nino or La Nina.  The broader term for this weather pattern is called the El Nino – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle.  The ENSO cycle is a scientific term that describes the normal fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific.  (Please note that the size of the ocean along the equator in the Pacific is three times longer than in the Atlantic Ocean.  As such, an Atlantic ENSO has far less impact in the Atlantic than the Pacific ENSO cycle.)  It happens naturally and has been doing it since man has been able to record the occurrence.  There are three distinct phases: El Nino (the warm phase), the neutral phase (the average state of wind and ocean circulation patterns), and La Nina (the cold phase) as shown in Figure 22.  Normally, El Nino or La Nina last 9 to 12 months but can last over a year or so.  While what I discuss focuses on the Pacific Ocean from South America to Asia, ENSO can have broader weather effects across the globe.

Neutral Phase

During the neutral phase, depicted in Figure 23 and Figure 24 (a “normal” year), the western side of the Pacific Ocean experiences heavy rainfall and monsoons.  The eastern side of the Pacific experiences dry conditions, even droughts.  Trade Winds trying to equalize the air pressure differences push the upper level of the ocean westward.  This raises the ocean level about a foot higher in the west than in the east.  At the deepest levels, colder water is then forced eastward which then upwells trying to balance the difference in water height.

Please note the significant statement above.  Man-made climate change believers claim that climate change caused by rising CO2 levels is causing the ocean levels to rise.  Here is a case where the normal condition, Trade Winds, causes higher ocean levels in the west.

Figure 23. Neutral Phase – Simple View

Figure 24. Neutral View – Expanded 3-D View


El Nino Phase

During El Nino, the weather pattern changes. As shown in Figure 25 and Figure 26, during an El Nino (warm phase), the air pressure patterns reverse with low pressure zones in the eastern Pacific bringing lots of rain and high-pressure zones in the western Pacific bringing drought conditions.  The reversed air pressure zones diminish the normal Trade Winds and may even stop them or reverse them.  The atmospheric Walker Cell flows counterclockwise (normally clockwise for the Neutral period).  The ocean flow also reverses direction and flows clockwise (normally counterclockwise for the Neutral period).  During an El Nino, the western Pacific is much drier.  Conversely, the eastern Pacific is warm and wet.  Please note the natural weather pattern shift (not climate change) that makes Australia dry as moisture moves eastward.  As I write this, Australia is currently suffering from many raging forests fires due to extremely dry conditions.  Contrary to what some Liberals are saying, these fires are not due to climate change.  Weather variability caused the dry conditions but arsonists (24 in fact) started the fires.  There are also 183 people suspected of lesser legal action.

 Figure 25. El Nino Phase – Simple View

Figure 26. El Nino Phase – Expanded 3-D View

La Nina Phase

During La Nina (cold phase), the wind and ocean currents are exaggerated from the normal (neutral) season cycle, shown in Figure 27. The Walker Cell flows clockwise again during La Nina, like the Neutral phase.  Air pressure in the east becomes even higher than normal.  Air pressure in the west becomes even lower than normal.  The normal Trade Winds become much stronger.  The normal upwelling in the ocean along the eastern side also becomes even stronger.  As for the weather pattern during a La Nina, the eastern to central Pacific become cooler and drier.  The western pacific gets much heavier rainfall and stronger monsoons.  Regions that are typically dry during El Nino tend to become excessively wet during La Nina.

 Figure 27. La Nina Phase – Simple View


What is the “take away” summary of this chapter?  We learned that natural forces of nature following basic rules of physics and science create a pattern of wind and ocean currents that redistribute moisture and temperature around the globe.  Not only does this help moderate Earth’s temperature differentials, but it brings rain to the lands.  All of this happens naturally.  However, as life giving as this can be, it can also create harsh conditions for life in some locations.  Life in these areas had to adapt to these harsher conditions.  Occasionally, these same natural forces create conditions that changes “normal” weather patterns.  Since these are temporary conditions, they should not be considered as climate changes.  They are merely normal weather patterns.

This chapter discussed two events that seem to change what most consider “normal weather”.  Yearly Santa Ana winds reverse the normal wind patterns in California and bring extremely dry air with very strong winds.  These conditions can turn a minor fire into a devastating raging inferno claiming lives and property.  On a 3 to 7-year period, El Nino and La Nina can have drastic weather changes in the eastern and western Pacific regions of the globe.  Just recently, El Nino created very dry conditions in Australia, which lead to devastating arsonist-caused fires.  These weather events are normal weather and not climate changes.

Finally, this chapter addressed the very difficult subject of predicting clouds composition and the huge impact that it can have on any climate analysis.  Two similar clouds that are identical other than the amount/type of aerosol component can have significantly different effects on global temperature.  As per one quote from a climate scientist, “a 1% change in cloudiness count account for all 20th century warming.”  Yet however, clouds are ignored in climate computer models.

Chapter 6a – The Earth’s Heating and Ventilation System

by Michael Belsick

Just like in homes and businesses, the Earth has its own heating and ventilation system working automatically to heat or cool the Earth.  The main differences are that the Earth’s system is an automatic system that does not require any human input; the Earth’s system takes longer to bring about any changes; and the Earth’s system is far more complex than the ones invented by man.

The simplest explanation to start is that we all know that warm air rises.  Hot air balloons rise when the air inside the balloon is heated.  This air expands due to the heating.  When it expands, the air inside the balloon becomes less dense.  The cooler external air then forces the balloon up.  This same thing causes ice to float, because ice is less dense than liquid water.  In terms of weather, warming produces a low air pressure area where the hot ground has heated the air.  Since every natural system on Earth works to equalize differences, cooler air blows in to fill the low-pressure area.  Everything from now on will be more complex but I will attempt to keep it simple.  Just remember this one important fact:  nature does not like diversity in temperature, pressure, salinity, nearly everything.  As such, nature takes automatic and natural steps to equalize or balance everything that it can.  At its disposal, the Earth has atmospheric circulation and ocean currents to move heat around the globe.  Around 60% of the sun’s energy is redistributed by atmospheric circulation and around 40% by ocean currents.  All this movement causes changes in weather.

The Atmosphere

Warm moist air rises along the equator where the solar radiation is the strongest.  As it rises, it is cooled and pushed out of the way by warmer moist air still rising.  As the air cools, it becomes denser and falls.  This rising and falling creates 3 circular patterns of air flow between the equator and the poles.  These patterns are called the Hadley Cell, the Ferrel Cell, and the Polar Cell as can be seen in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Air Flow Patterns

Just to make sure that everyone is aware as to what direction the Earth spins, Figure 15 is a view showing why the sun seems to rise in the east and sets in the west.  As shown in Figure 14, the air flow patterns in the Hadley Cell, the Ferrel Cell, and Polar Cell are predominately a north/south flow.  Due to the motion of the Earth, air flow in the Hadley Cell lags behind the spinning Earth to appear moving westerly when it is trying to move north to south along the Earth surface.

Figure 15. Spin of Earth







Figure 16 is a 3-dimensional view of air flow due to the rotation of the Earth. Between the westerly flowing Hadley Cells and the easterly flowing Ferrel Cell, there is very turbulent air called the Subtropical Jet Stream.  Likewise, between the easterly flowing Ferrel Cell and the westerly flowing Polar Cell, there is the Polar Jet Stream.  These are shown in Figure 17. Those of us in the US are familiar with this jet stream if you have ever flown.  If you have a jet stream pushing you, you get to your destination sooner.  Pilots try to find an east to west path that does not put them flying into the jet stream to avoid any delays.

Figure 16. Air Flow

Figure 17. Jet Streams

While the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar Cells follow a set pattern producing the two different jet streams, the boundary of the cells and the path of the jet streams can vary widely.  A warm day in the US Midwest can turn very cold the next day just because the jet stream path changed bringing cold Arctic air with it.  However, all of this is natural and not affected at all by CO2.

The established patterns of winds bring moisture from ocean evaporation onto the dry lands to fall as rain.  Where high mountains exist, this moist air is forced to a higher elevation which cools it such that it cannot contain the same moisture level.  This causes more rain to fall on the ocean side of the mountain and creates a “rain shadow” on the opposite side of the mountain where little rain falls.  The Sierra Nevada mountain range on the eastern side of California is the source of water for California, but it keeps Nevada from getting hardly any rain.

As previously noted, the cooler air from the Hadley cell and the Ferrel Cell fall back to the surface at the 30th latitude.  This colder air has lost all its original moisture when it rose in altitude at the equator.  If you look at a globe, all the great deserts in the world occur near the 30th North or South latitude.

Santa Ana and Diablo winds that generally occur in autumn, originate from cool, extremely dry high-pressure air over the Great Basin (all of Nevada, much of Oregon and Utah, and portions of California, Idaho, and Wyoming, as shown in Figure 18). They flow east to west into a very low-pressure area over the ocean off California.  These Santa Ana winds are extremely high velocity winds (easily exceeding 40 mph) that have been heated by the ground as they flow west.  Santa Ana winds can rapidly spread any fire started by any means.  These Santa Ana conditions have existed over 5,000 years, and were known to the Native Americans that inhabited this area.  Also, these Santa Ana winds existed long before humans occupied this section of North America.  Any fires spread (but not caused) by Santa Ana winds can be extremely destructive including to any man-made structures.  However, these Santa Ana winds are part of the normal ecology of this region.  While destructive, there is a benefit that comes with Santa Ana winds.  These strong winds push the upper level of the ocean westward allowing for upwelling of nutrient rich colder water which is good for the fisheries off California.

Figure 18. Santa Ana and Diablo Winds



Chapter 5 – The Earth’s Energy Budget

by Michael Belsick

As noted in chapter 3, science indicates that the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) of 340 W/m2 (watts per square meter) is the average level of solar radiation (sun’s energy) reaching the top surface of the Earth’s atmosphere.  As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.  Figure 13 is a depiction of the Earth’s energy balance from NASA.

Figure 13. Earth’s Energy Budget

This energy balance depiction is complicated mainly because of a closed loop feedback back system where energy is bounced around a bit between the ground and the atmosphere.   Eventually, the original 340 W/m2 are radiated back into space leaving a net balance of approximately 0 W/m2.  The most important aspect of this chart is that the Earth used the sun’s energy, bounced it around a bit between the ground and the atmosphere (keeping us warm at night), but eventually allowed it to escape back into space.  Without any greenhouse gases, the Earth would freeze at night.  The Left loves to demonize carbon dioxide, as a greenhouse gas, saying that increasing levels of CO2 is going to kill all life on Earth.  Instead, CO2 is keeping life from freezing at night.

I would also like to add a comment about all the numbers mentioned in this chapter.  There is a lot of debate among scientists as to each of these specific numbers.  NASA uses 340.4 W/m2.  If one looks at different sources, there will likely be other differences.  Whatever the differences of opinion/data are, the conclusions will be the same.  Energy in equals energy out with the additional benefit of some energy bouncing around a bit at night.

For completeness, I have two additional thoughts to convey.  Albedo is the property defining how much energy is reflected off something.  Albedo can cause large differences in reflective energy numbers.  Something that is pitch black would have an albedo of zero (reflecting nothing and absorbing everything).  A mirror would have an albedo of 100% (reflecting everything and absorbing nothing).  Fresh fallen snow would have an albedo of 80% to 90%.  Desert sands might have an albedo of 40%.  A forest might have an albedo of roughly 15%.  I am mentioning this to say that all the reflective energy numbers used above are a property of the albedo.  Think about what happens to the energy balance after fresh snow fall.  It changes with more energy being reflected into space and less being absorbed by the Earth.  How about large concrete cities replacing forests or grasslands?  There will be a shift of energy balances because the albedo has changed.  These types of changes due to man-made development (clearing grasslands/forests and replacing it with concrete/asphalt) can have a larger effect on the climate than carbon dioxide per some of these man-made climate change models.

In summary, life on Earth depends upon the solar radiation affecting the Earth.  Some of that thermal energy is immediately bounced back into space.  Some of that energy makes it to the surface of the Earth, warming it.  A lot of this thermal energy is bounced around between the atmosphere and the surface.  This aspect is the only thing that keeps us warm at night.  Without it, life could not exist on Earth.  How much of this energy is bounced around is dependent upon the ground’s albedo and the greenhouse gases (water vapor and CO2).  With water vapor having the most significance, the amount and type of clouds have a significant impact.  This will be addressed more in the next chapter.

Chapter 4 – The “Relativity” of Time and Temperature

By Michael Belsick

This chapter about time may seem irrelevant to a discussion about climate change.  I have included it because it may provide a better comprehension of time with respect to the Earth’s climate over the eons.  In the previous chapter, we discussed how orbital mechanics of the Earth’s rotation around the sun changes every 100,000 years.  That is an extremely large number to comprehend.  The birth of Jesus Christ was just over 2,000 years ago and that seems to us a very long time ago.  So how can anyone truly comprehend the age of the Earth and everything that has occurred on Earth during that time?  No person can truly understand the almost infinite.  When it comes to the creation of the heavens and Earth, the age of the Earth is incomprehensible because it is so far beyond the limits of our own lifespans.  Let me try to convey nearly infinite time as if it were condensed down to a 24-hour period that we can comprehend.  If the Earth was formed out of gases and rocks 24 hours ago (4.54 billion years ago actually), then here are some milestones in geological time:

  • After 4 hours and 10 minutes, bacteria-like life first appeared in the seas (3.5 billion years ago)
  • After 12 hours and 31 minutes, an oxygen atmosphere formed (the beginning of weather)
  • After 18 hours and 46 minutes, the first multi-celled organisms appeared (600 million years ago)
  • After 21 hours and 47 minutes, the first vascular plant life appeared
  • After 22 hours and 24 minutes, the first reptile appeared
  • After 22 hours and 46 minutes, the first dinosaur appeared
  • After 23 hours and 39 minutes, dinosaurs became extinct (That was 65 million years ago)
  • After 23 hours and 53 minutes, apes first appeared
  • After 23 hours and 59 minutes and 58 seconds, homo sapiens arrived on Earth
  • After 23 hours and 59 minutes and 59 seconds, wooly mammoths became extinct (4,000 year ago)
  • As the clock strikes 24.00-hour, modern man is finally on Earth (still long before Jesus Christ was born)

There are few points to be made from above.  First and foremost, no one was around when the Earth was formed to document the process.  Carbon dating (estimating the age of something due to the radioactive decay of carbon from when it was originally formed) greatly helps in determining the age of fossilized bones and organic matter.  But carbon dating only works for something less than 75,000 years old.  If something is older than that, then comparative aging is used to determine how old something is.  For example, if a find is made and one can determine the age of the rock around it, then you have a good guess as to the age of the object.   The bottom line is that all the science can do is to look back at geological and fossil evidence to piece together the best guess of what happened and approximately when it happened.  As such, it is merely a hypothesis, the best that modern science can provide.

Figure 12. Continental Drift

Additionally, the Earth has undergone massive changes in land masses, shown in Figure 12.  Using known plate tectonics, scientists speculate the existence of one super continent, Pangea, some 200 million years ago (22 hours and 56 minutes ago per the above analogy).  These plates slowly started to drift apart over time forming the continents that we have today.  Consider this.  We know that gas and oil deposits were created back when large amounts of organic matter grew, died, and were buried by earth.  Over millions of years, this “fermented” and became oil.  I for one cannot envision massive amounts of organic matter growing in the Arctic or Middle East as they are today.  What if these areas used to be tropical rain forests near the equator when the organic matter was deposited?  During the “fermenting” period, these large land masses moved to where they are today?  If land masses can move, then everything that one currently envisions as a stable climate is also subject to change.

Since I like analogies, here is one.  Imagine a 1-mile long picture that depicts the entire history of the Earth and life on Earth.  Cut that picture up into jigsaw puzzle pieces and dump most of the pieces into the trash never to be seen again.  Now there are only a few remaining pieces left, most of which are from only one end of the puzzle (representing human’s existence “today and recent past”).  Scientists sort through these remaining pieces of the puzzle and try to accurately place them on the puzzle board where they belong, trying to reconstruct the entire puzzle.  Since no one was around to see or know of all the different puzzle pieces, scientist can never prove exactly what happened and how the pieces fit together.  What we have today is the collective best guess of all scientists.  This does not prove scientists are wrong.  It merely means that scientists can never prove that they are 100% correct.  That is important to remember.

I wrote this chapter in order to provide a perspective for the reader.  Mankind thinks of time in terms of his personal existence.   We expect tomorrow to be just like today.  Essentially, we anthropomorphize history.  Conversely, history does not give a hoot about humans.   The important “take away” from this chapter is two-fold.  First, the notion of time is relative per our understanding.  Science does the best that it can to determine “what” happened and “when”.  It is their collective best guess, even if they attempt to make it sound absolute.  Second, pre-historic temperatures are also merely the collective best guesses from scientists.  There were no thermometers or people to read them in pre-historic times.  In other words, be skeptical of anyone trying to “sell” you some supposedly absolute truth.  That advice includes even this author.  I am merely providing the information that I have been taught or read.  I am here trying to provide everyone the facts as I know them plus the uncertainty surrounding those facts.



Chapter 3 – The Sun is the Source of All Heat for the Earth

By Michael Belsick

If we do not count periods when the Earth’s molten rock escapes to the surface with volcanoes, the sun is our only source of heat for us on the Earth’s surface.  The question to be addressed in this chapter is whether this heat is constant.

Let me start with an analogy.  Anyone that has ever gone camping and sat around a campfire understands the basics.  After you built your fire and set up your chair at a comfortable distance from the fire for just the perfect temperature, the fire starts to burn down.  At first, you move your chair closer to the fire.  Finally, after someone puts more wood on the fire, the flames flare up forcing you to move your chair farther way from the fire to be comfortable.  The sun is just like that campfire, but we do not get to control where our chair is placed.

First, the sun does not give off a constant source of “heat”.  It varies with time, including its 11-year solar cycle.  The sun is not a solid object.  It is a gaseous mass in constant internal motion.  Occasionally, “solar flares” send out massive amounts of solar material 30,000 miles or more out from the sun’s surface.  There are also sunspots that appear as dark spots on the surface of the sun.  On an average, the sun’s energy level, after travelling about 93 million miles, and first reaching the top stratosphere of our Earth’s atmosphere (about 40 miles above the ground) is 1,361 watts per square meter (W/m2).  (Just as a reference, watts are how you measure the effectiveness of your electric heater.   Think about when you put air into your tires, you add air until the pressure reaches the acceptable level of psi – pounds of force per square inch.  The number above is similar in nature to your tire pressure – some force acting upon a flat square surface area.  The only difference is the type of “force”, pressure or watts, and the units of measure, inches or meters.)  The 1,361 W/m2 is based on a flat surface perpendicular to the sun’s rays. Since the Earth is spherical, the sun’s energy is calculated for the curved area of the Earth. They call this number above the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).  An average of 340 W/m2 is typically used.  The actual energy is higher at the equator and lower at the poles and varies by season. During the maximum solar output of the sun during sunspot activity, the energy level from the sun increases by 0.07%.  (For perspective, please note the comparison of sun energy varying by 0.07% for an 11-year cycle while CO2 has recently varied by 0.01% after several decades.)  So, by going back to my campfire analogy, our campfire changes over time but not by very much.  Let’s examine the chair spacing to the fire analogy in the next paragraph.

The Earth revolves around the sun as shown in Figure 6.  However, the path of the Earth around the sun varies over time from a nearly circular path (slightly an ellipse) to a far more elliptical path.  Additionally, the Earth’s axial tilt and “wobble” as it spins on its axis all vary over time.  Collectively, the total effect of these variations creates alterations in the seasonality and severity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.  These are called the Milankovitch Cycle.

Figure 6. Earth’s Path Around the Sun

The Earth’s 1-year orbit around the sun is constantly changing within a cycle of around 100,000 years.  When the orbit is almost circular (only slightly elliptical), Figure 7, the distance from the Earth to the sun ranges from 91 to 94.5 million miles for one year.  When the Earth’s orbit is at its most elliptical path (100,000 years later), also Figure 7, the distance from the Earth to the sun ranges from 80 million miles at its closest point to 116 million miles at its farthest point during a one-year period.  That difference in distance has a significant change in the amount of solar radiation (TSI) that reaches the Earth.  Instead of around 340 W/m2 constant heating during an almost circular Earth orbit, solar heating ranges from 395 W/m2 (a 16% increase) at the closest distance to the sun to only 272 W/m2 (a 20% reduction) at the farthest distance to the sun for a full elliptical orbit.   During a nearly circular orbit, the angular velocity of the Earth around the sun is almost constant.  However, during a more elliptical orbit around the sun, the Earth’s angular velocity speeds up near the sun, but slows down farther from the sun.  The total time around the sun remains constant at 1 solar year.  That means that the higher solar heating of 395 W/m2 does not last very long, but the lower solar heating of 272 W/m2 lasts much longer.   Geologists tell us that there is evidence of major ice ages across the Earth that occurs about every 100,000 years.  Everything just mentioned above explains why this is so.  It has occurred since the beginning of time (for the Earth) and will forever continue.  Just to reference back to my campfire analogy, we learned that the campfire remains relatively constant (0.07%).  However, our chair location from the campfire is constantly changing over a 100,000-year cycle.  If one got to decide when you are born, it would be better to be born at a time when the Earth’s orbit is nearly circular.  Keep in mind however, our ancient ancestors survived ice ages without modern technology when the Earth’s orbit was at its most elliptical.

  Figure 7. Near Circular vs Elliptical Orbits

At the end of chapter 2, there was a chart of CO2 concentration and Earth temperature over an 800,000-year period (Figure 5).  All the low temperature time periods are about 100,000 years apart.  This represents known Ice Ages on Earth due the Earth’s orbit being elliptical (Eccentricity).  Obliquity and Precession cause “ripples” in the Eccentricity wave pattern as shown in Figure 8. When man-made climate change scientists evaluate the contribution of carbon dioxide variability, they ignore the variation of orbital mechanics which is six times the value of carbon dioxide variability as a greenhouse gas.

In terms of the Earth’s tilt (Obliquity) and wobble (Precession), this also affects the sun’s energy distribution over the surface of the Earth.  During the summer, the northern hemisphere receives more heating.  Conversely, during the same summer months, the southern hemisphere receives less heating.  Obliquity (tilt) varies from an angle of 22.10 to 24.50 over a cycle of 41,000 years.  Currently, the tilt is 23.50.  If there were no tilt at all, then there would be no change of seasons.  Any given spot on Earth would receive the same amount of solar radiation every day of the year.  Since the Earth does have a change of tilt over the 41,000 years previously mentioned, there is a change of severity of the seasons.  With the smaller tilt, solar radiation is more evenly distributed between summer and winter.  With the larger tilt, solar radiation is less distributed causing more severe summers and winters.  During the equinoxes (March and September), it is that transition between summer and winter such that there is effectively no tilt with respect to the sun.

Precession is the slow wobble as the Earth spins on its axis.  Because the Earth is not a sphere (radius of the Earth from the center to the equator is 13 miles greater than the center to either pole), non-uniform gravitational forces of the sun and moon causes the Earth to wobble over a 26,000-year cycle.  Currently, the North Star is Polaris.  In 13,000 years, this wobble will cause the Earth axis to point to the star Vega, which will become the new North Star.  During this period, winters will be colder, and summers will be warmer.  Then 13,000 years later, Polaris will once again be the North Star.


Figure 8. Milankovitch Cycles – Orbital Variations


There is one final orbital variation that affects climate.  That is Nutation, which is the rocking and swaying motion in the axis of Earth rotation caused by the gravitational forces of the sun and moon.  During Precession (wobble), Nutation causes a small change to the tilt angle (Obliquity) which causes a relatively short-term disturbance to the seasons and tidal behavior over an 18.6-year cycle.  In 2006, the tidal changes brought large volumes of warmer water into the Arctic which melted polar ice at a faster rate.  This was the beginning of the current hysteria of man-made carbon dioxide warming the planet, even though this was not due to carbon dioxide at all.  As noted here, it was simply an unusual but regular natural occurrence due to orbital mechanics.  All of this will likely happen again in 2024.

Summation of Milankovitch Cycles

Figure 9 shows the interaction of the three Milankovitch cycles.

Figure 9. Milankovitch Cycles


The chart in the upper corner is enlarged in Figure 10 with the past starting on the right side of the graph.

Figure 10. Enlarged Chart of Milankovitch Cycles Interaction


The result of these 3 Milankovitch cycles in terms of Earth’s temperature is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Glacial-Interglacial Cycles Over the Past 450,000 Years

Let’s recap what we have learned in this chapter.  We learned that the sun is not a constant temperature, but that variation is not significant.  We learned that the Earth’s orbit around the sun is highly variable in regular cycles between a near circular orbit to an elliptical orbit.  This natural change results in significant heating differences for the Earth due to differences in the distances between the sun and the Earth.  We learned that the Earth’s rotation about its own axis is naturally variable which is also significant in terms of how much heat distribution there is across the surface of the Earth. We learned that all of this can lead to significant differences in climate for the Earth and none of it is associated at all with carbon dioxide.  For completeness, I must add one caveat regarding the influence of the Milankovitch cycle.  While accurate in proposing how orbital mechanics can affect the climate, the timing of these events compared to the reconstructed (what paleontologist believe it was) paleo-temperatures does not match up 100%.  There is something else going on as well which is not fully understood.  Currently, this is a problem for the Milankovitch cycle explanation or what the paleontologists believes.

Chapter Summary

We have we learned that

    • Known orbital mechanics (how the Earth revolves around the sun and how the Earth spins on its axis) can cause significant changes to how much solar energy reaches the Earth.
    • All these events have regular cycles that interact with each other to either amplify or diminish the changes in solar energy reaching the Earth.
    • These differences in solar energy reaching the Earth cause changes to the Earth’s climate. For example, there are known Ice Ages about every 100,000 years.
    • Per Figure 11, today’s average Earth temperature is lower than what it was about 140,000 years ago.
    • Orbital mechanics, the Milankovitch cycles, can affect tidal currents, which in 2006 caused faster melting of Arctic Polar ice.
    • These significant climate changes are independent of CO2 variability.
    • Just for my personal speculation, what do we know about what happens during the winter, especially in the northern land masses? Decaying organic matter gets cold and even freezes, this halts the decay process.  The normal decay process in warm weather generates lots of CO2.  Getting back to my previous question, periods of cold temperature would likely result in lower CO2 concentrations due to lack of normal decay process.  So, temperature changes can cause CO2 concentration changes.  Just as confirmation of my speculation, Al Gore once in 2007 admitted under questioning that CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes.  As a side note, there are about 1600 gigatons of organic carbon stored in soils around the world, compared to about 750 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere.  If soil decomposition increased by 10%, then CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would increase by 20%.  Just for completeness, there is also a known fact that CO2 is stored in the oceans which release it slowly back into the atmosphere.

For anyone wanting more info on Milankovitch cycles, the following is a good link to a discussion:  http://www.stableclimate.org/milankovitch-cycles


I did not give a discussion of volcanoes its own chapter, but I did wish to mention the impact of volcanos.  As previously mentioned, volcanoes can be a source of heat to the atmosphere or to the oceans.  In fact, 85% of are underwater.  It is also known that when volcanic rocks cool, they release monstrous amounts of CO2 and other gases.  Climate scientist generally account for this released CO2, but only from the visible 15% of volcanoes above water.  They ignore the impact of 85% of the volcanoes including the CO2 released underwater.  It is also known that CO2 in the oceans is released into the atmosphere.  Instead of blaming all CO2 emission on the burning of fossil fuels, shouldn’t they also consider volcanos, both above and below the water?

Chapter 2 – Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Pollutant

By Mike Belsick

While it is true that increasing industrialization is generating more carbon dioxide over pre-industrial ambient levels, the increase is a very modest percentage.  Keep in mind that the industrialized burning of fossil fuels adds two different components to the atmosphere: soot or other particles and carbon dioxide.  It is the soot that causes smog.  Carbon dioxide is invisible.  However, the Left talks as though carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant formed from burning fossil fuels.  That is a very misleading description.  Another source of CO2 is you.  In every exhaled breath of air, you put slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere than what you breathed in.  That is called respiration and every living animal on Earth does exactly the same thing.  We need oxygen (O2) to survive – to power the engines inside our bodies.  The byproduct of our internal engines is CO2.  Essentially, every human is like an automobile.  We need fuel and air to run.  We also create byproducts that we do not need.  Is our exhaled breath air pollution?  Consider this, while animals give off CO2, plants need that CO2 to grow.  In the process of photosynthesis, plants use CO2, water, a few minerals and organic matter, in the presence of sunlight to grow.  The byproduct of a plant’s internal engine is oxygen.  This is a perfect symbiotic relationship between plants and animals.  Since all animal life on Earth is dependent directly or indirectly on plants and plants can only grow with CO2, carbon dioxide should never be considered a pollutant.  Just like oxygen, CO2 is critical for all life on Earth.  In fact, satellite imagery shows a much greener planet thanks to the current slightly higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Look at it this way.  While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” wants to illuminate CO2, slightly increasing levels of CO2 is making the Earth far greener.  Isn’t that ironic?  Maybe AOC should call her plan the “Brown New Planet”.

What is the composition of air?  By volume, dry air contains 78.09% of nitrogen, 20.95% of oxygen, 0.93% of argon, 0.03% of carbon dioxide, and small traces of other gases, as shown in Figure 4.

Please note the incredibly small percentage of CO2 that is normally in the atmosphere.  We know from deep ice core samples in Antarctica that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere constantly changed up and down over the last 800,000 years.  On the average, CO2 is about 250 ppm (parts per million) with peaks around 300 ppm.  Currently, it is said that CO2 levels are about 400 ppm.  So instead of normal CO2 levels being around 0.03% of the atmosphere, it is currently around 0.04%.  That represents a change of 0.01% of the atmosphere.  Could a change that small wipe out all life on Earth?  Very doubtful.

Figure 4. Composition of Air

Water vapor is also a component of normal air, but it varies a lot due to conditions such as temperature and location.  Water vapor can be as high as 4% (100 times that of CO2) in tropical regions.  On the average, water vapor would be between 2% to 3% of the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide and water vapor are considered as the main components of “greenhouse gases” that blanket the Earth to keep it warm at night.  Again, please note that water vapor, as a percentage of what is considered as a greenhouse gas, is significantly higher than carbon dioxide.  As such, water vapor has a much larger impact on the climate than carbon dioxide ever can.  However, no “man-made climate change believer” discusses water vapor.  All the greenhouse gases are critical for life on Earth to keep us warm.  On average, these two gases together only amount to 2-3% of the total atmosphere.  It is amazing, in a very positive way, that such a very small percentage of air can have such a beneficial bearing on life on Earth by keeping us from freezing at night.

When sunlight first hits the Earth’s outer atmosphere, some of the sun’s energy is bounced back into space, about 30%.  Some of this energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, about 20%.  The other half of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the Earth and warms it. At night, when there is no more heat from the sun, the heat absorbed by the Earth wants to radiate back into cold space.  However, the atmosphere, specifically greenhouse gases, traps some of this heat from escaping.  Water vapor and carbon dioxide prevent us from freezing at night.  In a later chapter, I will go more into this energy balance.

Just to end this chapter with an important fact.  The average Earth temperature (everywhere on Earth at the same time), if it did not have an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, would be -0.40 F (-180 C).  That would be well below freezing just like the planet Mars that has very little atmosphere.  Instead, the average temperature is 590 F (150 C) which is very habitable.  Greenhouse gases (water vapor and carbon dioxide) make this possible.  Instead of killing the planet Earth, carbon dioxide and water vapor are making it livable.

To be fair to the man-made climate change believers and to be honest about the presentation of data, there is one chart, Figure 5, that man-made climate change believers like to rely upon.  It supposedly shows the correlation between CO2 concentrations and Earth temperature.

Figure 5. Correlation of Earth Temperature and CO2

At first glance, there appears to be some relationship between the two measures.  It would be easy to imagine how someone could become worried about a drastic rise of CO2 ending up causing a significant rise of the Earth’s temperature.  However, there are some questions to consider before someone starts running around saying the “sky is falling” (reference to Chicken Little).

    1. Deep Antarctic core samples supposedly can determine CO2 concentrations back 800,000 years. While I can imagine how ancient samples of air, including CO2, could be trapped in years upon years of falling snow, how do you know what the temperature was over this 800,000-year period?  (See next chapter on Milankovitch Cycles)
    2. As one pulls up these core samples from Antarctic, how do you know how old the sample of CO2 is? Carbon dating is the normal process of determining the age of something, but that is only valid for 75,000 years ago and not 800,000 years ago.  So how do you know that the last sample pulled up is 800,000 years old?  I am speculating that the age is merely an educated guess.  See chapter 4.
    3. However one determines or guesses what the CO2 concentration was, when it was that concentration, and what the temperature was at that time, the next question to ask is which one (temperature or CO2 concentration) is the cause of the other (CO2 concentration or temperature) or is this merely a coincidence with something else causing both to react in a similar manner?

As persuasive as this chart may be used to prove an idea, there are too many questions in my mind that are unanswered to consider this chart as persuasive.  Naturally, no one of the man-made climate change believers is addressing these questions.  Why should they when 97% of all scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change.

In summary, CO2 is not a pollutant but rather is critical for humans and animals to exist. CO2 concentrations and temperatures have fluctuated throughout hundreds of thousands of years yet it is not certain if the changes are the results of one acting on the other or which order. CO2 concentration has increased since industrialization and currently is about 0.04% of our atmosphere (from pre-industrialization high of 0.03%).  Keep in mind that water vapor, the other greenhouse gas, ranges from near zero in incredibly dry places to around 4% of the atmosphere in incredibly wet places.

By Mike Belsick

Chapter 1 – 97% Agreement ????

To lead off my climate change discussion, I would like to address the claim from the Left that 97% of all climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change.  Let me ask you a simple question.  When, in your experience, have you ever found that 97%, basically everyone, agree on something?  I am not just talking about just a small group of friends or family.  I am asking about the entire US and even the entire world.  Ask people what their favorite ice cream flavor is, and you may get more than 31 flavors.  Ask for the best football team and you will get 32 different answers.  Yet somehow through all of this “diversity” of opinions, the Left claims that 97% of all scientists agree on man-made climate change.  Would you like to know where that number came from?

Climate Researcher John Cook reviewed 11,944 scientific papers on climate change written between 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of those papers made no reference at all to humans causing climate change.  These papers discussed natural phenomena that have caused climate change for millions of years.  The remaining 33.6% of those papers alluded to possible human causes.  Of that 33.6%, 97% of them specifically concluded that anthropogenic CO2 had caused the climate change noted.  So, the 97% number of man-made climate change believers used by the Left is really 97% of 33.6%, which is less than 32% of all climate scientists from around the world during the time period in question.  If you are wondering why we do not hear from the 66.4% of climate scientist, that is a very good question.  The main answer is that they are not allowed to speak on any Media network.  The “powers that be” in the science community also try to silence these scientists.  However, there are many books in circulation that provide an honest discussion of climate change.  A much later chapter in this series will address the politics of man-made climate change and how these voices have been silenced.

I will add that no one knows exactly what the percentages are for the anthropogenic “believers” versus the so-called “deniers” are today.  There appears to be a lot of corruption in this scientific endeavor for political and financial reasons.  The important take away from this chapter is that the current Left’s claim is inaccurate because there are still lots of scientists that do not believe even significant changes in carbon dioxide concentrations could trigger a climate change event and there are a lot of scientists that do not believe that humans cause a significant difference in any climate change.

Dr. Michael Crichton said:

“There is no such thing as consensus science.  If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.  If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”