Today is the last day for commenting on the United States Department of State’s U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed., but I thought it best to send my comments directly to you.

The problem with climate models is that they do not mirror reality or accurately predict the future. Global Climate Models (GCMs) relied upon by the USDS and climate alarmists contain faulty assumptions and therefore unrealistic (grossly inaccurate) projections of climate change a/k/a global warming.

The Sun drives climate change (cooling or warming) and fluctuations in the Sun’s energy output alter global temperature over decades and centuries. If one’s oven does not work properly (either heats up too much or not enough) one would check the heating element not the seal on the oven door. Since it would be difficult to regulate or tax the sunshine it is not surprising that GCMs designed to support regulation and taxation do not accurately account for the Sun’s fluctuations in energy output. Given the known and studied solar cycles it is much more likely that we will experience global cooling in the decades to follow. An overwhelming majority of citizens understand the fact that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. If you need a simple explanation of the science I recommend you watch THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE.

The GCMs assume that CO2 (a minor greenhouse gas), if “doubled”, will cause slight global warming of 1 degree Celsius and an additional 2 degrees Celsius from corresponding “positive” water vapor feedback. Climate modelers assume that as rainfall increases there will be a net reduction of global radiation into space. But remember these are just assumptions that are not backed by actual observations. In the scientific study and analysis performed by William M. Gray and Barry Schwartz (The Association Of Outgoing Radiation With Variations In Precipitation – Implications for Global Warming, that can be found and read at climaterealists.com) actual observations from an expanded data set (for the period 1950 to 2009) demonstrate that with increased rainfall there is an enhancement of radiation to space (increased cooling) and therefore the water vapor feedback is negative. This means that we do not experience two of the warming degrees projected and the other degree is halved so you end up with half a degree of warming “if” (and that’s a big if) the amount of CO2 doubled. There is definitely no current or future problem and half a degree of warmth, when one considers increased food production, is climate change for the better.

In conclusion, the GCMs and the USDS report fail to reflect reality and scientific observations. In the real world a “doubling of CO2” with the negative water vapor feedback may result in a slight increase in temperature of half a degree. Place on top of this reality the fact that 97% of the CO2 generation is caused by nature (Sun’s liberation of CO2 though ocean evaporation, volcanoes, dead/decaying plant and animals, etc., etc.) and only 3% is from man-made sources you begin to understand why we couldn’t affect climate even if we were able to eliminate all of our “man-made” CO2 output. The effect on temperature, if any, would be far too small to measure or matter. Hopefully, your policies concerning energy and the environment will be based on reality and scientific observations and not upon faulty climate models.

Warmest regards,

George Nicholas