About 41.8% of reported average global temperature change results from natural ocean surface temperature oscillation and 58.2% results from change in the rate that the planet radiates energy to outer space, as calculated using a proxy, which is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. Using just these two factors explains average global temperatures (least biased values based on HadCRUT4 and other credible measurements) since before 1900 with 89.82% accuracy (R2=0.8982).

If atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is included in the calculation, it might account for about 7.5% of reported average global temperature (AGT) change. If CO2 has that much influence, then the calculated ocean surface temperature effect decreases to about 40.1% and sunspot influence decreases to about 52.4%, but accuracy increases an insignificant amount to 89.91%. This miniscule increase in accuracy indicates that CO2 change probably has substantially less than even 7.5% influence on average global temperature change.




  1. This is a long article which I admit I have not read entirely yet. It may provide additional details regarding the factors involved with the rate at which energy radiates. The way it is presented in the two paragraphs I posted leads one to believe that CO2 levels in the atmosphere effect temperatures by a different means all together.

  2. If I’m not mistaken, there is a consensus in the scientific community that burning carbon fuel plays a significant role in global warming. I don’t understand why you think spreading contrary, alternative theories is helpful in dealing with reality. Neither you nor I are qualified to choose from among these theories. Those who are qualified seem to have already reached the conclusion that what we do makes a difference. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

  3. I don’t believe in man-made climate change. The only purpose of spreading lies that man is capable of altering the global climate to his liking is to brainwash people into subservience to a global authority. This is a catastrophe generated to bring the global community under a single ruling entity. I have read numerous dissenting arguments on the subject, so to say that there is scientific consensus is simply not true.

    Here is more on the topic:

  4. Odd, but don’t you think that the number of articles you read that reinforce your existing prejudice would put you in the “brainwashed” category?

    I would recommend again that you check Wikipedia. They suggest that scientists are “90% certain” that man-made causes are significant. They further say, “These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.”

    That’s a lot of brainwashing of some pretty smart brains, don’t you think?

  5. Doing research that is counter to popular opinion hardly can be classified as brainwashing. However, taking the media’s word for it and blindly believing what you are told surely does. To each his own I suppose.

    I always like to ask those who buy into this nonsense who is responsible for climate change on mars? Yep, that’s right the climate changes on other planets too. Hmm, there are not humans there? Remember when it was global cooling in the 70’s and then warming in the 90’s? Now it’s just “change” in any direction we’re supposed to worry about. It’s ridiculous.

  6. The mars question cannot be so casually shrugged off. The point is valid. If climate changes occur on planets where man is not present, that is strong evidence that climate changes occur as a result of the revolution of planets around the sun or some similar natural event. To jump to the conclusion that man is capable of affecting these cosmic natural forces might just be laughable.

    Lets’ say you are correct and man has an effect on global climate. Due to the fact that the earth has both cooled and warmed in the past, it must be the case that man has historically affected earth’s temperature in both directions.

    Was it man who caused the little ice age and man who caused the thaw? If man holds such sway over the climate of earth, why is that man-made climate change is always presented as having the potential for only a negative impact. Obviously, by scientific evidence, and the fact that we are still here, man must have been doing something right all this time to have survived on a planet who’s climate is so fragile. After all, we haven’t froze or burned ourselves out of existence.

    It seems to me that the much more obvious answer is that man’s actions are not to blame for changes in the climate. If they were, mankind would have been eradicated from the face of the earth long ago.

    Again, lets presume I’m wrong and you are right – man has only an negative impact on climate. What is the solution. The problem is man – there are too many on earth and too many who do things that hurt the planet. I suppose the solution might entail limiting earths population. I suppose the solution would be limiting production and consumption on a global level. What would not be permitted in the name of saving earth from certain destruction? What would not be permitted to ensure the survival of mankind?

    The problem of course, if you are correct, is who exactly has the knowledge to determine what temperature is most advantageous for all of mankind at every point on earth? Who has the wisdom to know what changes would be necessary to warm and cool the earth with precision to thwart the dangers to man’s future existence? No one has that knowledge.

    If there were such an all knowing individual, endowed with all knowledge necessary to orchestrate man’s actions to alter the climate and prevent man from destroying earth, the totalitarian rule required to force all of humanity to act in a way to obtain these climate goals would in effect turn every living human into a slave so some elite ruling class.

    Alas, we don’t really have to worry about that because no person with that knowledge exists nor will exist. If I fall for the lie that man is responsible for global climate change, I put myself in a position that requires me to submit my will to another person or group of people who have absolutely no chance of effecting change with any certainty at all that those changes will yield a future that is any better than if I retained my freedom and independence and rejected the notion that I must submit for the world to continue existing. It’s all bs.

  7. There’s much merit in what you say. Certainly some climate changes are perfectly natural and cyclical. But science says that carbon dioxide in the air increases global warming. And science measures the carbon dioxide produced by different sources, and finds that our burning coal and oil has a significant effect.

    The solutions offered by science include replacing fossil fuel burning with clean energy: water, solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean waves. Generally these also improve the air quality for breathing.

    The steady growth of human population can pose a threat, worsening the demand to cut down forests that recapture co2, etc. One of the benefits of women working has been a natural reduction in childbirth in modern industrial nations.

    And you point well at the question of unintended consequences. Suppose, for example, that global warming was preventing the next ice age from beginning, and we ended up freezing rather than boiling? I’m with you there. We surely do not have all the answers. Still, when we see an impending harm, we must consider all the options, estimate their effects as well as we can, and proceed on the best knowledge available.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s