Climate Change is Driven by Changes in Orientation of Earth to Sun, Not Carbon Emissions, New Analysis of Berkeley Earth Data Shows

Climate change is being driven by a change in the orientation of the Earth to the Sun rather than carbon dioxide emissions, new analysis of data from Berkeley Earth shows.

The analysis is set out in full below. The highlights:

Analysis of Berkeley Earth data shows a significant difference in the rate of temperature increase between summer and winter in Greenland, with winter warming over four times more rapidly than summer.
Significant seasonal variation in the rate of warming is not specific to Greenland but is a global phenomenon at similar latitudes.
There is a correlation between warming rate and latitude, with a decreasing trend in warming rate as we move from north to south.
This analysis suggests that it is the change in orientation of the Earth to the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, that is the primary driver of climate change.
These findings raise questions about the credibility of the existing climate change narrative.

Berkeley Earth offers comprehensive land surface temperature data for the entire planet. It calculates temperature anomalies by comparing the actual temperature to the average temperature during the period from 1950 to 1980. In a previous article I used data from this site to show that there was minimal evidence of a significant increase in global temperatures, contrasting it with the magnitude of seasonal variations. While it is undeniable that our planet has warmed over the past 150 years, what is the root cause? Could it be attributed to the orientation of the Earth to the Sun, considering it is the only heat source?

I had already downloaded data for some specific regions, and as this is available in monthly increments it was a relatively simple task to interrogate the data to see if there were any seasonal variations in the rate of temperature increase.

To clarify, I am analysing the Berkeley Earth data from 1860 to 2020 by dividing them into three-month periods to calculate the average seasonal anomaly. For instance, winter includes December to February, spring includes March to May, and so on. I then graph these data and calculate the temperature change rate using a linear trend line. Comparing seasons each year is a dependable method because it allows us to draw conclusions based on the relative seasonal warming rates at specific locations. This approach reduces the risk of complications caused by factors like urban warming or thermometer inaccuracies.

I was expecting any seasonal differences to be minimal but to my surprise this was not the case. This is the analysis for Greenland for the period of high carbon dioxide emissions (Fig 1):

The chart clearly shows a significant difference in the rate of temperature increase between summer and winter (4.6 times greater). This difference intrigued me, prompting me to investigate if this pattern is consistent globally. Here is a map of the world (Fig 2) comparing the average annual warming rate (in black) with the seasonal variation (in purple) expressed as a percentage relative to the mean (relative standard deviation) for the four seasons. Higher values for both metrics indicate a more pronounced rate of warming and seasonal variation.

The key takeaways from the above (Fig 2) are as follows:

A clear decreasing trend as we move from north to south in terms of warming rate and a decreasing seasonal variation. This lack of seasonal variation was expected at the equatorial latitude but not for the northern and southern hemispheres.
Warming rates are consistent across latitudes that are at different ends of the earth.

(Data for Antarctica are only available from 1956 onwards so as this is not a comparable data set it has not been included.)

To try and shed further light I have taken four cities and regions from the furthest north, furthest south and proximity to the equator and taken the mean seasonal warming rates for the locations represented by red, green and orange dots respectively above (Fig 3).

This chart confirms that the difference between winter and summer seen in Greenland was not specific to this region but a global phenomenon at this latitude. In this analysis, using four locations, winter is warming nearly four times (3.8 times) more rapidly than summer. This seasonal trend is evident, albeit to a much less extent, at the equator and in the southern hemisphere.

If we examine the observation that the warming rate was changing with latitude using these 12 data sets, we get the following graph (Fig 4):

We can see that there is a reasonable degree of correlation between warming rate and latitude (R² = 0.7797; a value of 1.0000 equates to a perfect correlation). There are many other factors that influence local climate. Air and ocean currents have a strong bearing and can change on a seasonal basis, but the locations above span the globe.

To further examine this annual cycle of the rate of warming at different latitudes I have taken Greenland as the most extreme and plotted the monthly rate of rise and compared this with New York, the southern hemisphere (Southern Chile) and the equator (Singapore) (Fig 5):

There remains a significant correlation between the time of the year and the rate of warming. For Greenland the difference between the monthly maximum (January) and minimum (July) rate of warming is a factor of 6.5. This large difference indicates that the Earth’s change in orientation to the Sun is playing a crucial role in the warming seen from 1860 to 2020. There is also a clear trend as we move from north to south in the maximum and variation of monthly warming. The second order polynomial curve fit has been determined using Excel.

This analysis suggests that climatic warming in the far northern hemisphere is highly seasonal, with Greenland exemplifying the most extreme winter-to-summer variations. Variations in warming rates across latitudes also point to the Sun’s proximity and angle as the primary driver of planetary warming during the period 1860 to 2020. These changes to the Sun’s orientation to the Earth are known as Milankovitch cycles. The changing seasons occur because the Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical path and is tilted on its axis. Greenland’s average seasonal range is approximately 26°C and as we are looking for something that can increase the warming rate by 0.011°C per year this simple explanation is hardly far-fetched.

Climate scientists admit their models fall short in explaining past rapid temperature shifts in Greenland, which were much more extreme than what we are currently experiencing. Professor William Happer co-wrote a paper, released in 2020 but largely overlooked, that questions the concept of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas at its current levels. These findings and many others prompt unanswered questions regarding the credibility of the existing climate change narrative.

The outcome and implications of this analysis took me by surprise. As I was citing the work of Professor William Happer I asked him to perform a sanity check. He replied that the analysis “looks reasonable to me”. He added:

What has caused the warming of the past two centuries is still open to debate, but I think the evidence is pretty solid that much of the warming was a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and had little to do with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Others have pointed out that the warming has been more pronounced at nights and at near polar latitudes. But it is nice to see this quantitatively confirmed in this analysis.

It is good that you point out strong evidence that the dogma that CO₂ is the control knob of Earth’s climate is certainly wrong. But it is being used as an excuse for suicidal economic policies supported by glassy-eyed fanatics and clear-eyed opportunists. This is bad news for humanity.