The basic tenant of global warming spoon fed to gullible masses is CO2 levels drive the global temperature. They claim this because CO2 is a green house gas (so is water vapor) part of the process heat trapping the Earth’s atmosphere does so we are protected from the frigid cold of space. The theory is this minor component of the green house mechanism (supposedly around 5% or less of the total process) is driving global warming.

The other obvious driver could be the Sun itself. If the green house mechanism was operating as usual, and more energy was being pumped into the atmosphere, then it would not be the fault of CO2 levels that Global Temperatures have been rising for 400 or so years. In fact, if you look at our neighboring planets you can see indications that this is exactly the case (see here and here). It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out warming of Mars and Jupiter are not due to CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere.

In fact, I posted recently on some work which tracked CO2 levels over the ages and global temperatures and there seems to be no connection whatsoever (except the chance CO2 levels are a response to warming, not a driver).

Not well known is the fact that those who pray at the altar of the Church of Al Gore and Global Warming have claimed there is no way solar activity could be the cause of the recent warming. Now someone has come out and put another nail in the coffin of the global warming hysteria, by demonstrating how solar activity has tracked very well with global temperatures.

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed.

Note the period given is the last 30 years, but note the chart above and the solar irradiation, and how it jumped 50 years ago (you can click on it to go to the original, larger version).

It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.

However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.

Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.

I would agree there is a combination of factors here, one definitely ‘man-made’. Throughout the last century until the warming started in the 1990’s the increased irradiance was not translating into an average increase in temperature. CO2 levels were rising during this period, but they still are and as the top graph shows we have seen 10 years of flat temps with the next 10 years predicted to experience actual cooling. With CO2 levels marching higher why will we in essence see 20 years without a green house effect?

The fact is Global Warming is not Global at all – it is centered over the massive explosion of human beings in China, India, etc, as the following US government chart clearly shows:

The article linked above which notes the direct connection between solar irradiance and global temperature increases suggests that the increased solar energy that started 1961 slowly built up the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. But I would also wager the human activity happening in the areas where the density of human beings has sky rocketed also has played a part in tipping the global average higher. As the chart above shows the America’s show almost no warming (+/- 1 degree) whereas the area of Asia (but not Russia) show huge jumps in average temperature – tipping the overall “global” number up one degree in 100 years.

But if the cooling comes despite increasing CO2 and human activity over the next 10 years, then there is no other conclusion to reach – the Priests of GW were wrong.

When someone proposes we cripple our economy and downgrade our current living standards at an astronomical cost to every human being on the planet, is it really too much to ask they have real evidence and they don’t pretend evidence to the contrary simply doesn’t exist?

GOVERNMENTS and industry need to invest at least $US45trillion ($47trillion), or 1.1 per cent of world GDP annually, to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency has warned.

That calls for a massive increase in nuclear energy output – about 32 new nuclear plants a year for the next 40 years, compared with the 393 currently in commission – and other forms of non-carbon-emitting power generation. An average 60 new coal- and gas-fired electricity plants around the world would need to be fitted each year with carbon dioxide capture and storage technology, at a cost of $US90billion annually.

Massive investment would be needed to develop CO2 reduction technology, up to $US100 million annually for the next 15 years, the IEA asserts in its Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 report. But the alternative, under a continuation of current energy use, is a 130 per cent increase in emissions over that time and a 70 per cent net increase in global demand for oil.

Unless of course the person making the requests are simply delusional or lying, then I guess it really is too much to ask.

Update: Our ever astute reader Crosspatch notes this post and this updated figure from above showing a continued global cool-off in May (click to enlarge):