Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling climate change

According to astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, the sun is the main driver of climate change

Download this column for your publication or website

Contact Michelle

CALGARY, AB, May 25, 2015/ Troy Media/ – Atmospheric scientist Dr. Judith Curry told the U.S. Senate on Jan 16, 2014 that, in light of the extended ‘hiatus’ of 15 years (to 2012) with no appreciable global warming despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide, it is clear that carbon dioxide is not the knob that controls global warming. Natural factors are clearly more influential.

The biggest and most obvious natural factor is the sun. According to Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, solar physics receive only nominal attention in the climate change reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Shaviv will be presenting “Solar forcings and climate change past and present” in Calgary at the Red and White Club on June 2, 2015.

IPCC’s skewed climate change results

Shaviv’s blog “Sciencebits” explains how he too once assumed carbon dioxide was the ‘knob’ of climate change – but a closer look revealed this was not so. Further astrophysical work demonstrated to him that the sun is the main driver of climate change.

climate change
Carbon dioxide is a minor player in climate change

Dr. Shaviv explained to me recently that the “Total Solar Irradiance” is the main solar factor reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), although in fact this so-called ‘solar constant’ is highly variable. The numerous other solar influences are excluded from IPCC reporting – leading to skewed results that, until recently, have given the impression that carbon dioxide from human industrial activity drives climate change. Dr. Shaviv says carbon dioxide is a minor player.

Shaviv is an award-winning scholar; in 2003 Discover Magazine named his galactic climate research number 34 of the top 100 science stories of 2002.

Dr. Shaviv referred me to the pioneering work of John Eddy in identifying the solar influence on climate. To my surprise, NASA has just issued a summary of Eddy’s work on Kindle entitled: The Sun, the Earth and Near Earth Space. Eddy’s skills as an excellent teacher are evident in this highly readable book.

So what does this mean for Alberta – now at the crossroads of a change in climate change policy?

When we look at the UK and EU, where stringent carbon reduction policies were implemented almost a decade ago, we find that millions of people have been pushed into ‘heat-or-eat’ poverty due to rising power prices. As temperatures rarely go below minus 5 degrees Celsius there, what would it mean for Albertans in a minus 40 degree C/F winter?

In the EU and UK, the power grid capacity is uneven and fails frequently due to an onslaught of renewable wind and solar – allegedly to reduce carbon dioxide and thus ‘stop climate change.’ But wind and solar output fluctuates wildly, causing power surges and drops that result in blackouts. Industry has thus been subsidized – with taxpayers’ funds – to turn off operations at peak demand times. Unfortunately, there was no relevant reduction of carbon dioxide, with industry moving its carbon intense operations offshore.

Why does industry ever agree to carbon taxes or cap and trade? It wants to maintain access to institutional investors which hold some $95 trillion in investment funds. These institutional investors are required to ‘comply or explain’ as signatories to the UN Principles for Responsible Investing.

When we look at this big picture, we find unelected, unaccountable, offshore forces swaying investment markets on the basis of skewed, highly politicized ‘climate catastrophe science’ from the IPCC. Look who profits, and how, from crazy climate change policies.

Money spent on climate change mitigation wasted

We’ve spent over $1.9 trillion dollars world-wide since 2012 on climate change mitigation, with no environmental benefit and at great cost to millions of taxpayers.

Maybe it is time to overhaul the IPCC – or just dismantle it. Canada’s cold winters and vast transportation needs will always make us a victim in climate change negotiations. We should not agree to play against a stacked deck, especially when the evidence shows that carbon dioxide is not the knob on global warming or climate change.

It’s the sun. Ask an astrophysicist like Dr. Nir Shaviv.

Michelle Stirling-Anosh is the Communications Manager of Friends of Science.


Judith Curry U.S. EPA Testimony Jan 16, 2014

Troy Media Marketplace © 2015 – All Rights Reserved
Trusted editorial content provider to media outlets across Canada
Submit a Letter to the Editor

[contact-form-7 id=”80428″ title=”Letter to the Editor”]

14 Responses to "Carbon dioxide is not the knob controlling climate change"

  1. Avatar
    Alloyminium   May 25, 2015 at 11:27 am

    Where did the author get this complete trash about the UK “and” EU. Blackouts? Frequent power failures? This is made up.

  2. Avatar
    grounded   May 25, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    It’s not the sun, sorry.  Total solar irradiance varies less than 0.2% on an eleven year cycle.  There’s no sign of that cycle in the climate indicators of the last century.

  3. Avatar
    Rodkeh   May 25, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    The Sun only accounts for less than 10% of the surface heat on this planet. Solar fluctuations are irrelevant! The control for climate change is not the Sun either.

    It is that horrendously erroneous theory called The Greenhouse Effect that has created all the ambiguity and misunderstanding about the cause and mechanism of global warming and climate change.

  4. Avatar
    Troy Media   May 25, 2015 at 9:32 pm

    Letter to the editor:
    People think, that because they can feel the heat of the
    Sun while lying on the beach in the summer, that the Sun is the main source of
    heat on this planet. This is just not so!
    If it were not for that huge nuclear furnace at the center
    core of our planet pumping out massive quantities of heat, the surface
    temperatures would drop about 240 degrees C and no one would even notice that
    minor light-bulb in the sky, the Sun because at minus 240 C, we would all be
    just peopsicles.
    I started out over 45 years ago with an “A”
    average in Math, Physics, Chemistry and English and have spent the interim on
    independent study of all sciences and climate change in particular. I made a
    point of independent study because I didn’t want to be intellectually
    contaminated, by “conventional wisdoms” and “contemporary
    consensus”. Those are not a legitimate scientific basis upon which to make
    public policy but they are what passes for it today, when it comes to climate
    change and the mechanism behind it.
    For all this time I have been trying to get the message
    out, about the true mechanism of climate change and for all those years I have
    been making “accurate predictions” (I reiterate predictions not
    rationalizations after the fact, as the Greenhouse Theorists do) about the
    effects of atmospheric CO2 and climate change. All my predictions have come
    true, including the current hiatus, whereas the Greenhouse camp has never made
    a single accurate prediction about anything, beyond the actual fact of global
    warming and now that fact seems to be in question. In spite of these
    “facts”, still no one will listen.
    When will anyone listen to voice of reason. If climate
    science ever got the science right, there would be no skeptics and the course
    of the public policy that we would be behooved to take, would be completely
    Will reason ever overcome ignorance and consensus?
    Rod Kehler

  5. Avatar
    Roger Gagne   July 26, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    Let’s pretend there is no scientific consensus on global warming. What is actually happening out in the world that we ought to respond to?
    There is a growing number of countries and companies committing to 100% renewable energy by 2020, if they’re not there already.
    Influential decision makers and risk managers at the IMF, the IEA, the World Bank, and the OECD are deeply concerned about global warming, and are acting. The head of the US Navy in the Pacific theater called climate change the greatest threat to US national security in the region.

    “Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Shell, has said that investors moving their money
    out of fossil fuel companies is a rational response to the industry’s
    “distressing” lack of progress on climate change.”

  6. Avatar
    Roger Gagne   July 26, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Michelle Stirling finds the rare bird, a scientist who disagrees with human-caused global warming, and waves his study in the air while ignoring the massive weight of contrary evidence.
    In 2012, National Science Board member Dr. James Lawrence Powell and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. 
    Then in an update, Powell reviewed peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period
    from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. He found 2,258 articles,
    written by a total of 9,136 authors. How many explicitly rejected the theory of human-caused global warming? One.

  7. Avatar
    Roger Gagne   July 26, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    While Michelle Stirling and her shadowy employer the Friends of Science (who don’t name their funders, unlike TIDES and the Pembina Institute whom she derides regularly) softly hum their soothing tones that climate change is a hoax and climate scientists are paid shills, the Helheim Glacier loses ice by 1.5 km per summer. That’s not a thin sheen of ice, it’s hundreds of metres tall.
    Water managers in Alberta are deeply worried about loss of glacier ice, including the Bow Glacier that is Calgary’s water supply. In Washington State, Mount Rainier is losing ice at six times the normal rate.
    India’s heat wave, or Pakistan’s? Oh, just natural variability. Thousands of people dying? Well, these things happen, you know. Alaska melting? California’s drought? The Amazon drying up? Completely unrelated.
    Obi-Wan Stirling waves: “This is not the evidence you’re looking for”.

  8. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Roger Gagne  Roger Gagne is mistaken. Judith Curry agrees that humans affect climate change – like many dissenting scientists, she questions HOW MUCH. The current evidence is – not much. Natural factors appear to be having a larger effect and it seems that CO2’s effect from human activity has been significantly overstated – about three times the actual impact.

    It would be rare indeed to find a scientist (or citizen) who disagrees that climate changes – or that humans have some impact.  Scientists disagree about the cause – and the alleged ‘consensus’ surveys like that of Powell, Oreskes, Andereegg, Doran & Zimmerman, never address this issue of scope – how MUCH is the impact of human influence on climate….also what specific human activity. 

    It would be suprising to most people to find out that scientists see human impact in broader terms – land disturbance (agriculture, dam building, water diversions, draining of wetlands), deforestation, black carbon from emissions (this absorbs heat in the arctic and leads to warming – however black carbon also comes from wildfires in great quantity), hurban heat island effects, clearing land by wildfires in developing nations – people should read about the ash and soot from Indonsian peat fires, look at NASA’s satellite views of human-caused wildfires across Africa and the Amazon – these are all human factors.  CO2 emissions is only a tiny element of human impact on climate, probably not the most important one.

    It is too bad that enthusiasts for renewables (like Roger Gagne) use sources like DeSmogBlog, which is funded by the offshore Oak Foundation which has a mandate to foist a carbon trading system upon us – so DeSmogBlog and other ENGOs that call dissenting scientists names, are really just propping up the ‘big business of Big Wind and Big Solar and Big Carbon Trading’ – all of which need each other to survive.
    But most of all, they need the fear of ‘catastrophic’ global warming to bolster the case for renewables. If looked at on a cost-benefit basis, no one would ever go into wind or solar on an industrial scale – it only is accepted because people are ‘afraid’ of carbon dioxide. DeSmogBlog – follow their money.

  9. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    Roger Gagne  Here we have DeSmog getting money from Oak Foundation of Switzerland…look at all the other names on this screenshot.

  10. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Roger Gagne More Oak buck$

  11. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Roger Gagne Even more Oak Buck$$

  12. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    Roger Gagne Here’s an article on Oak’s website showing what it wants to accomplish with all these generous donations…. carbon trading system. Look at the names of the groups and check out what they have been calling for in their reports.

  13. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    grounded  Your view of solar impact is too limited. Dr. Nir Shaviv spoke at our spring Distinguished Speakers event and we will soon post his presentation wherein he discusses his research on how the sun drives climate change. You can find more of his writings and links to his peer-reviewed papers on his blog “Sciencebits”  You can also search “Club du soleil” and you will find about 1,000 academic and peer-reviewed papers on the various effects of the sun on climate change.

  14. Avatar
    FriendsOScience   July 27, 2015 at 1:47 pm

    Alloyminium  In 2013 Friends of Science hosted Dr. Benny Peiser from the UK and his video is on Friends of Science website. Dr. Peiser’s talk was entitled: “s “To Heat or Eat: Europe’s Climate Policy Fiasco”” and he demonstrated the 37% power price rise in 8 years in the UK and EU(over par with the US).  You will find in the UK press at present there are numerous articles about cutting subsidies to renewable power producers with the specific intent of lowering costs to consumers. There are a number of UK and EU websites showing the heat-or-eat poverty across the region.
    Peiser’s presentation is on our main website and you can find it under “FoSInititiaves – Annual Luncheons”

    As for blackouts, there are a number of stories in Der Speigel about German inudstry facing costs due to power surges and instability on the grid from renewables – some of them simply installed their own power generators on site to avoid all the problems (and lots of carbon taxes apparently); there are stories in the UK press about their grid being at capacity and there is an expectation of rolling blackouts or paid compensation to industrial operators for shutting down between 4-8pm – of course the compensation payments would come from taxpayers…

You must be logged in to post a comment Login