AN EXCERPT FROM GLOBAL WARMING: CO₂, SUNSPOTS, OR POLITICS?

BY PHIL N. BALDWIN, JR.
(Exclusive to Barely a Blog)

Global warming is one kind of weather topic. The current topic of man-made global warming is quite another. The idea of man-made global warming is a very politically charged issue, yet it is simply incorrect! The fact that the average global temperature has risen and fallen over time, near and far, is history. For example, most of us have forgotten the media and scientific claims and predictions of the mid to late 1970s that the world was on the brink of a new mini ice age, like the one in the mid 1600s to early 1700s.

Today, the media, the United Nations, and some US and European politicians are consumed by the concept, not of global cooling, 25 -30 years after the global cooling scare, but of man-made global warming.

There is data showing that the earth has warmed over the recent 50 years, though there is data that calls into question how much warming has happened and where it appears in the world. My e-book contains data that indicate both points. But, if you believe the warming is real, which is most probably true, then why is it warming? This is the million dollar political and scientific question. If it could be proven warming was due to man, this could lead to anti-economic growth policies in the US and Europe – not a good thing for most citizens of the developed and undeveloped world. On the other hand, if there was sound data to show that man has nothing to do with creating global cooling (1960-70s) or global warming (1990s-2000s), more monies could be spent on real environmental problems such as air pollution and bad or lack of water.

We are told global warming is absolutely true and due to the specific man-generated, ‘greenhouse gas’ carbon dioxide (CO₂). This gas is generated from the combustion of carbon sources such as wood, natural gas, propane, coal, oil and motor fuels. About 0.015% of the earth’s atmospheric volume is CO₂ down from a historical high of ~0.30%. The greenhouse gas you don’t hear about is water vapor/gas. It represents on average about 1% of the earth’s atmospheric volume or ~67 times more volume than CO₂. A variation in the water vapor in the atmosphere of +1.5% of the 1% total (0.015%) [not unusual] would equal the total volume of the earth’s CO₂. What is responsible for the water vapor in the atmosphere and the variations? The Sun is responsible, not man.

If global warming was due to an increase in CO₂ over the past 80 years, then there should be a strong mathematical correlation between the change in CO₂ and the change in global temperature. There is a math term called the coefficient of determination (R²) that is used to measure and explain the change in one variable (CO₂) as related to impacts in a second variable (temperature). A value of 1.0 indicates a perfect explanation in the change in one variable as related or caused by the other. Usually in statistical math, high R² values of 0.90 or greater are desired to have high confidence in a cause and impact relationship. That said, between 1925 and the current period, the R² for CO₂’s impact on global temperature is ~0.21 or in effect no impact of significance. Then, what has a high correlationship with global temperature change?

The Sun is the source of nearly all the natural energy on earth with the earth’s core nuclear reactions and resultant heat being a minor source. Sun activity, sun flares and sun spots were initially monitored and measured in the 17th century with the use of Galileo’s 1609 invention of the telescope. By the middle of the 18th century, the methodology for measuring and recording flare and sun spot activity had been formalized by members of the Royal Danish Observatory. The first Solar Cycle was measured during the period 3/1755 to 6/1766. A Solar Cycle is when energetic sunspot activity is measured at or near zero observed sun spots; activity slowly rises to a peak level and retreats once again to zero. There have been 23 observed solar cycles to date. The Solar Cycle length is typically described as 11 years in duration. Actually, they have ranged from 9.7 to 12.2 years. The last cycle, #23, peaked in the Summer 2000; the next peak is expected about the Summer of 2011.

I have analyzed the sun spot data and devised a useful mathematical formula I call the Solar Cycle Power Index (SCPI). This is simply calculated as averaging the three highest monthly sun spot peaks and taking 80% of this value. Now, add up all monthly sun spot numbers in the cycle that equal or exceed that 80% of highest peaks number – this
value is the SCPI.

When the changes in the SCPI values are plotted against mean global annual changes, the SCPI tracks very well with the global temperature changes. Further, the extraordinary warm period at the end of the 20th century and into the early 21st. century is best highlighted in terms of the SCPI. During Solar Cycles 1 through 11, the average SCPI was 1,502. For Cycles 12-23 the average SCPI value is 2,845, and when you look at just the recent cycles 20-23, the SCPI mean value jumps to 5,606 or 273% greater than cycles 1-11 ands 97% greater than the mean SCPI for cycles 12-23.

It is clear that man is not generating any global warming. Although man may continue to pollute the air and water, this does not indicate man is behind global warming. The only rational, databased, scientific-mathematically based conclusion to be drawn from the work covered in the e-book, Global Warming: CO₂, SunSpots, or Politics?, is that global warming and cooling are caused by the Sun and can be tracked through the use of the Solar Cycle Power Index.

****************
N. Baldwin, Jr. attended the US Air Force Academy and graduated with a BS degree in Chemistry – Mathematics from the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN. Postgraduate work was done at the Universities of Akron and Northern Illinois. In addition to the weather data analysis e-book Global Warming: CO2, SunSpots, or Politics? , Phil has published two books on Applied Statistics. He has performed test designs and data analysis for the US Department of Energy, nuclear power plants, and on many industrial projects. He founded the first hazardous waste treatment, reprocessing, and storage facility in Tennessee. He works with his wife Bettye for The LrnIT Corporation in Colorado Springs, CO, a family owned consultancy.

For the second time in fewer than four weeks, the Pacific Northwest has experienced a severe storm, with temperatures plummeting well below the freezing point. This time, the region was buried beneath 13 inches of snow, in some places. It even snowed on the Oregon coast —a first, if I am to believe the reports.

As for the rest of the country, MSNBC’s headline blared: “Freezing weather grips nation’s midsection … The storm was expected to continue through the weekend, laying down a coat of ice and snow from Texas to Illinois, where an ice storm warning was in effect through Monday morning.”

CNN reports that “frigid arctic air reached as far south as southern and central California.” And, “More rain, freezing rain and snow was expected from northwest Oklahoma all the way to Wisconsin on Sunday.”

So far, we’ve not experienced power outages, the kind that enveloped Oregon and Washington States in December 2006. Those plunged us into primitive conditions never before experienced by this writer, who’s lived in Israel, South-Africa, and Europe. (However, I am told that since democracy arrived in SA, and jobs were taken from some —the qualified —and given to others —the politically qualified —14-hour rolling blackouts are a permanent feature of beautiful Cape-Town.)

The power companies now confirm what I had theorized well before the audit was in: 90% of the damage to power lines and grid was caused by trees. This is a tree hugging region. People won’t hear of cutting them away from the source of electricity. Not even if a few lives are sacrificed. We have to keep the Goddess Gaia happy, you know!

During the outage last month, I listened with disbelief as radio hosts fielded calls from women who told of leaving their unheated homes to go to local shelters to get warm. Is that reason enough to go lounge about with strangers and use public showers and toilets? Shelters are for those at risk, the homeless come to mind, not those who couldn’t be bothered to pull on a pullover. What’s wrong with a few layers of clothing? We managed okay in temperatures of 45 degrees in the house, although I’m happy to report that I now own a generator. Self-sufficiency cannot be overemphasized since civilization’s enemies, the Reds, seized control.

Other idiotic calls treated with great sympathy by radio hosts were requests from dog owners for “generous” strangers to “rescue” their mutts from dark, cold homes (the owners had already fled to the shelters). “My dog is going to freeze in the house,” one moron moaned. If a dog freezes indoors he should be put down. But let me steer clear from further comment about this dog-deranged society. Some people even kiss the creatures on their filthy traps.

Given the Big Freeze enveloping the country, comments about global warming are nowhere to be found. But, as I keep repeating, the “watermelons” —green on the outside, red on the inside —will invariably tell you that “every permutation in weather patterns —warm or cold —is a consequence of that warming or proof of it.”

And those of you who read this space will reply a la Mercer (channeling Karl Popper): “Yours is a theory not refutable by any conceivable event, which is why global warming is junk science.”