Is climate change real and if so is humankind responsible?

The Earth gets all its energy from the sun in a somewhat complicated process of absorption and radiation with delays between the incoming and outgoing energy that creates a livable temperature on the planet’s surface. Geological records, going back hundreds of millions of years, have shown that the planet’s average surface temperature has ranged from a low of ~12.0^OC to a high of ~22.0^OC and the planet is to the low side today at just under 15.0^OC. Obviously the mechanism that regulates the planets temperature is self correcting and does not get into a runaway hot or cold scenario. Since we know these facts to be true, we therefore have an inherently stable system.

The next fact to be considered, is that 10,000 years ago we were just about ready to come out of the last “Ice Age” with deep glaciers covering most of the land masses in the northern hemisphere. Obviously humankind had nothing to do with the existence and removal of that ice and so again we have proof that the climate is a variable and never gets totally out of line. But it should be kept in mind that we still have not got back to what would be an average geological global temperature of ~17.0^OC so panic at the current slightly less than 15.0^OC is somewhat irrational.

Now looking back two or three thousand years where we have recorded history and physical evidence we find that there have been well documented alternating cold and warm periods; The sub-Atlantic cold period, The Roman warm period, The dark age cold period, The Medieval warm period, The little ice age and the current Modern warm period. These cycles are real and consistently repeat themselves in a ~500 year up or down cycle making for a ~1000 year over all cycle. That movement in global climate is therefore the base for our modern climate and must be used in any climate model that will work.

Global temperatures are published each month by NASA-GISS (NASA) in their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) which goes back to January 1880 and runs by month to the current date and is where we get temperatures to work with. In that data, one can observe both the ~1000 year cycle and also a shorter ~70 year cycle which were used to create a climate model based on those two cycles back in ‘07. However once that model, which I called the PCM (Pattern Climate Model), was completed it was found that there was another factor to consider which was the effect of increased levels of CO₂. The addition of CO₂ with a lower sensitivity values than that used by the IPCC, 0.65^OC verses 3.0^OC, gave excellent predictive values and was used very successful until 2014 since this model predicted the current “pause” and further showed it will last until the mid 2030s.

Two things happened in late ’14 and early ’15 the first being that NASA decided to start seriously tampering with the climate data to make sure that the December 2015 COP21 conference in Paris had data that showed the planet had never been this hot before. The anomaly value published in November 2015 for their LOTI table for October 2015 was 104 which is the equivalent to 15.04^OC; and sure enough in “that” report October 2015 was the hottest ever recorded by NASA. Unfortunately in previous versions of that report many other months had values higher than 104; so NASA had to make them colder in the November 2015 report. Data tampering was nothing new to NASA but what was done this time was so blatant that just about everyone in the field could see it. This data tampering created a situation where the climate model I developed was now showing an error or deviation that had not previously been observed, although it was not a major deviation and the PCM model was still more accurate than any of the IPCC GCM’s.

The other thing that occurred was that I became aware of the use of Pi (3.1416) in finding patterns. During November I decided to see if Pi could be used to improve my model. What I found was very interesting and it did make the climate model better. A base to work from was needed and so I picked the 22 year solar magnetic cycle. Thus 22 times Pi is 69.115 years and that becomes the short cycle and the long cycle becomes 15 times the short cycle or 1036.726 years which made it 330 times Pi. These values were not much different than what I had come up with in ’07 but they did make an improvement in the model being able to match the NASA values even better after changing all the formulas that I used to reflect this change. Also Pi to the power of e is 22.46. With the equations set only three things were required which were a starting date, 1650 in this case, and a starting temperature, 13.4^OC, and lastly amplitude for each cycle. Based on observations 1.65^OC was used for the long cycle and 0.29^OC was used for the short cycle. These values are reasonably consistent with observation.

After making this change there was no change required in the CO₂ model which is a logistics curve and matches the NOAA plot almost exactly which then allows projecting CO₂ in to the future. Then after making all the adjustment based on Pi I found that I had to raise the CO₂ sensitivity value up from what I was using 0.65^OC to get the plot to match NASA data. I’m not sure this increase is justified as the NASA data is artificially high and so the 0.75^OC value that I used may also be too high. However the 0.75^OC is close to the expected lower values in current published papers and so even if the NASA values are eventually corrected and lowered, as they must be, a new lower value such as 0.75^OC will still work since the sensitivity effect at that level is relatively low.

The following chart shows the results of using the 22 year solar magnetic cycle and Pi as the determining factor for the observed climate patterns. This chart is made from the average value of temperature and CO₂ for each year, instead of using the monthly values which are very irregular in the NASA temperature tables. You can see the large upward movement in the 2015 temperature which is not justified as the satellite data clearly shows a lower value, however you can also see that the yellow plot from my model is very, very close to a mean of the NASA values. The sad thing is that this model might be even better if we had the real values to work with not the manipulated ones that NASA gives us. I have also added a red trace showing the IPCC AR5 A2 global temperature projection.

One other technical criticism of NASA is they use the period of 1950 to 1980 (30 years) to make their base for calculating anomalies, for some unknown reason. They determined that the mean temperature for that period was 14.0^OC and they measure deviations from that in hundredths of a degree such that 15.04^OC ends up as an anomaly of 104. This makes for interesting gyrations since they are always changing the values in their LOTI table and when they do so those values that end up in 1950 to 1980 period have to equal 14.0^OC to make their system work, black oval in chart. It would have been much better to pick a value that had meaning such as 17.0^OC which is the historic mean temperature of the planet. If they had done this then I would bet that the values around 1950 would be somewhat higher and closer to the yellow PCM plot. The next chart shows a closer view of the current period. In this Chart you can see the close relationship of CO₂ and the IPCC AR5 A2 plot, this close of correlation leaves no room for other factors and since the IPCC has ruled out any natural reasons for climate change this makes sense. However if that assumption is wrong than the climate models are also wrong and that is why NASA manipulated the temperature values prior to COP21. The PCM model indicates that there will be no more warming until into the 2030’s

The next chart shows a complete 1036.7 year cycle. What we have is 1.65^OC from the long cycle, 0.29^OC from the short cycle and about 1.4^OC from CO₂, but actually I think the effect from CO₂ will be less since the current NASA numbers are inflated and that forces us into a higher level in the model. Personally I think that the total will be close to a half a degree less than shown here but even if not we are still well below the geological average of 17.0^OC so there is nothing to worry about. Both CO₂ and global temperatures have been significantly higher than present levels which are actually closer to historic lows than to historic highs. Also if CO₂ does get do over 1000 ppm plants will grow faster and therefore farming will have higher yields.

I also added a green plot labeled PCM WOC (without carbon) to this chart showing what the existing pattern of the long and short cycles would be if there was no increase in CO₂ from the base of 290 ppm so we have something to reference the effect of CO₂ which is only ~1.4^OC. Today’s current temperatures would be about .5^OC lower with a constant level of CO₂ than they are with CO₂ going from 290 ppm to 400 ppm. The next big global temperature increase will be from 2035 to 2070 and that will probably be a full degree so if we are not prepared that will cause utter panic since that will be more than what we had from 1975 to 2005. The Chart on the next page shows these items.

This climate model has been rightly criticized as curve fitting and I cannot claim it is not; however it does work so it must be based on real processes at play on the planet. My best guess is there are two things going on the main one is the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit which reverses the aphelion and perihelion to the seasons every ~10,000 years. Since the bulk of the land is in the northern hemisphere and the southern is mostly water this makes a big difference since the summers will get hotter and the winters will get colder in the northern hemisphere when the earth’s axis is pointing toward the sun at perihelion which it will be in 10,000 years. A plot of the changes in solar flux is shown on the next page. know this is not 1,000 years but I just have a feeling that it is related. The thermohaline ocean circulation is a 1,000 cycle and probably related to the precession but this alone cannot explain the global temperatures and so it has been dismissed.

The other cycle the short 70 year cycle which is, in my opinion, related to the 22 year solar magnetic cycle which probably has an effect of particles entering the earth’s atmosphere and that changes the cloud layers which changes the planets albedo. There is more support for this theory but by itself it cannot account for the observed changes in global temperatures and so it has also been dismissed.

After writing this paper I became aware of a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) November 7, 2000 by Charles A Perry and Kenneth J Hsu. The paper was about a relationship between 2^N and solar output i.e. the solar magnetic cycle of ~22 years. So 2^6 power is 64 and 2^10 is 1024 which is not far off from using PI * 22 or Pi * 330, and in fact substituting those values in my model made little difference in the output. And since the NOAA and NASA published temperatures have been compromised there is no way to know which system is better at matching current temperature, which is very sad of science.

When the long and short cycles are removed we are left with only CO₂ and that forces us to use the NAS 3.0^OC +/- 1.5^OC for each doubling of CO₂; which worked when the long and short cycle were both in ascendance but 3.0^OC +/- 1.5^OC does not work now that they are not. As long as we ignore the geological cycles we will never be able to build a GCM that works.