I Would Be More Worried About Global Cooling 17 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
So the U.S. recession is officially a year old, panicking Chinese authorities are letting the Yuan depreciate to help plunging exports, the famed Tudor hedge fund is halting redemptions, and economist Paul Krugman has noticed the economy is in 'steep decline.'
All of these factors fed a sharp reversal of the recent near 20% rally, but given that Krugman has become the personification of a contrary indicator, I'd be buying. My tactical view as explained in Equities: A flock of Black Swans... remains intact; we will likely see new bear market lows in 2009 (and a bursting of the historic bond bubble), but not before a substantial rally through the next couple of months. One of the key secular trends that will define our long-term economic future is Climate Change, but in which direction? Right now, the Green lobby are quietly cheering global recession; there's nothing like slumping economic activity to cut those nasty carbon emissions that will see us all wading knee deep in seawater in a few decades.
Allegedly. When I see an overwhelming consensus that takes on almost religious overtones, the skeptic in me can't help asking questions. Like: why are ice glaciers from Alaska to Norway thickening in recent years? Why has their flow rate declined? In Alaska, the growth reverses a decline stretching back two centuries. Evidence is emerging from New Zealand to Canada of a similar trend, which flies in the face of the Global Warming hysteria. Why have average Northern Hemisphere temperatures been falling over the last decade, despite that carbon cloud, and average snowfall rising? So far, experts are dismissing these perverse developments as some kind of anomaly, but I'm not so sure. If we've learned anything this year, it's how utterly, comprehensively wrong expert opinion can be and how different the world can actually be to our preconceptions. I'm reminded of the Y2K hysteria, when tens of billions in IT spend were wasted on a non-existent problem that experts believed would bring Armageddon (and in the process inflating the Nasdaq bubble).
I have no doubt that human carbon emissions have a warming effect on global climate in an equilibrium model, with all else being equal. But just as simplified equilibrium models have wrong footed economists, so they may be misleading scientists, who are equally susceptible to 'groupthink' (particularly when their research grants depend on it).
I've read widely on this, and it seems that there are natural cyclical climate factors that may dwarf the marginal influence of human activity and that we just don't fully understand yet. In the National Gallery in London you can view 18th century paintings representing the 'Little Ice Age', a period of about 50 years when temperatures across Northern Europe suddenly plunged, leaving rivers and lakes frozen for months on end and causing huge mortality. Contemporary records note a dramatic decrease in Sunspot activity (essentially huge nuclear explosions on the Sun's surface that emit electromagnetic radiation across the solar system) during this period, a decrease which has been apparent in the past few years (data from NOAA here). Might we regret not pumping out a lot more carbon to mitigate the effects of a huge cyclical climate change to far colder conditions? I suggest you watch for incoming evidence that something strange and contrary to consensus is occurring in the world's climate. Maybe it's time to buy that discounted SUV; after all, GM needs the business, and you can't drive across a glacier in a Prius. At least Al Gore is well padded enough to survive a sudden freeze. Disclosure: None
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 17 comments:
By the way, the North Pole ice cover continues to shrink, including this year.
So let's not mistake the transitory for the long term.
Regards,
An American in Paris.
JPJR
It is concerning to me why this guy would think he would find accepting and unquestioning readers here for his obviously biased and totally unfounded blather. We are certainly not the ignorant dopes he was targeting.
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
www.populartechnology....
Sea Ice is not melting drastically, it is actually increasing in Antartica:
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/tops...
And there are active volcanoes under the Arctic:
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths (National Geographic)
news.nationalgeographi...
Scientists Find Northernmost Arctic Hydrothermal Field Venting Water at 570 Degrees F (Science Daily)
www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Man is causing global warming but not how you think:
Odd USHCN Weather Stations
www.surfacestations.or...
Finally there is no proof of man-made global warming without using irrelevant computer models:
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
www.populartechnology....
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
www.populartechnology....
Sea Ice is not melting drastically, it is actually increasing in Antartica:
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/tops...
And there are active volcanoes under the Arctic:
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths (National Geographic)
news.nationalgeographi...
Scientists Find Northernmost Arctic Hydrothermal Field Venting Water at 570 Degrees F (Science Daily)
www.sciencedaily.com/r...
Man is causing global warming but not how you think:
Odd USHCN Weather Stations
www.surfacestations.or...
Finally there is no proof of man-made global warming without using irrelevant computer models:
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
www.populartechnology....
Sometimes one needs to go back and check the math on some of the more insane claims of the global warming wingnuts. There is actually a claim that if the Greenland glaciers melt, sea level would rise by 7.2 meters, 30some feet. I did the math. The claim is bs. Yet Al Gore used it in his movie.
There are other patent lies in Gore's movie and in the gw community. The greenhouse gas theory of global warming is pseudoscience at best.
The Little Ice Age lasted much longer than 50 years, though its actual duration is somewhat disputed. In 2000 Brian Fagan published a book titled, "The Little Ice Age". Fagan's timeframe is 1300-1850, which is the longest I've seen.
You might be referring to the coldest period within these cold centuries which was between 1645-1715, which coincides with the Maunder Minimum of sunspot activity. According to Wikipedia, between 1610-1681 only 50 sunspots were recorded as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000. On the face of it it looks like a less active Sun leaves Earth too cold for comfort.
Prior to the little ice age was the Medieval Warm Period, from maybe 800-1300. This is the age of the Vikings and their 450 year colonization of Greenland (now mostly a frozen glacier), when reduced pack ice on northern seas allowed their ships freer range.
Recent climatology is focusing on the relationship between solar output and Earth's temperature (duh, turn up the planet's furnace and it gets warmer on Earth!) and the relationship between sunspots and solar output.
For about 30 years between the 1940s and 1970s planetary temperature was dropping which is the reason for the ICE AGE! scare of the 70s. From the 1980s to about 2000 the temperature was warming which led to the MELTDOWN! scare that global warming alarmists are still shouting today, even though the planet stopped warming in about 2001 and actually cooled the past couple of years.
The most damning evidence against current global warming alarmism is the fact that about 2.5-3 million years ago Earth entered into a cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods that we are still in today. The most recent Wisconsin era glaciations began about 70,000 years ago and the most recent interglacial began about 13000 years ago. The Laurentide ice sheet extended as far south as Nevada. Utah's Great Salt Lake is the remnant of a glacial "puddle" of meltwater.
Sea levels declined from preglacial levels as much as 100 meters at the trough of the deepest glaciations. You could walk across the Bering Strait and England was part of continental Europe, until some of the ice melted and raised sea levels closer to 'normal' levels.
This geological era is called the Pleistocene. The damning question is, why did all those other global warmings occur which ended all those other ice ages, when humans didn't have SUVs yet? If humans cause global warming, what caused all those OTHER global warmings?
For some reason, wishful thinking maybe, the most recent 12000 years since the end of the last ice age is called the Holocene era, as if the Pleistocene glaciation cycle has ended for some unexplained reason and we're into a permanently warmer new era called the Holocene.
This planet is about 4.6 billion years old and is continuously evolving. The planet is geologically active, and the Sun is geologically active, and there has never been any kind of geological "stability" in the solar system. The only constant is that things keep changing.
So anybody who thinks we can stabilize Earth's climate by riding bicycles has not done any homework in geological history. The planet did not exist in a state of ecological Eden until us sinners started driving trucks. Climate stability is a myth and a wish, not reality. The climate will keep changing no matter what we do.
About 300-250 million years ago the continents were still joined together as Pangaea (plate tectonics is the science of "continental drift"). About 55 million years ago the area that is now the Arctic was a little further south and enjoyed an average temperature of about 70 degrees F, like Florida today. The entire planet was much warmer and lusher than it is today.
There is no evidence of permanent polar ice caps until about 13 million years ago, then we had the Pleistocene with its deep ice ages beginning about 3 million years ago. The long term trend certainly seems to be that the planet is cooling, which makes sense.
The planet began as a collection of hot gases and dust about 4.6 billion years ago. Over the first maybe 500 million years enough energy radiated into space to cool the surface so the crust began to form. The crust has been thickening ever since, so it's now between 20 and 200 miles thick. The core is still molten, but much of that heat is now stored in the thick crust rather than radiating out to warm the surface. That's my theory of why we're into this geologically recent pattern of ice ages, this ongoing reduction in the geothermal component of our surface temperatures.
So Sean is right. We should welcome some global warming and fear global cooling, since in fact the planet is cooling in the long trend.
In 2005 William Ruddiman, former chairman of the U of Virginia enviro sciences dep't, published a paper in the Quaternary Research Reviews arguing that "human activities may have averted the next ice age". By studying ice core data (the same data Gore misused in his movie) Ruddiman concluded, "Without any anthropogenic warming earth's climate would no longer be in a full interglacial state (warm period) but be well on its way toward the colder temperatures typical of glaciations." He thinks human economic activity over the past 8000 years, such as burning forests to enhance gathering and hunting and later for agriculture, irrigation in Eurasia, livestock production, etc., may have generated enough greenhouse gases to blanket the planet and forestall the next ice age.
So maybe we better hold off on crushing all those obsolete SUVs. One cold winter soon we may want to leave them idling 24/7 to try to kickstart some global warming.
Anyone touting manmade global warming is either an idiot on in on the scam.
Whether the facts or opinions stated in this article are accurate or not, this was an entertaining and thought-provoking piece that I greatly enjoyed.
On Dec 03 09:43 PM derryl wrote:
> Sean,
> The Little Ice Age lasted much longer than 50 years, though its actual
> duration is somewhat disputed. In 2000 Brian Fagan published a book
> titled, "The Little Ice Age". Fagan's timeframe is 1300-1850, which
> is the longest I've seen.
>
> You might be referring to the coldest period within these cold centuries
> which was between 1645-1715, which coincides with the Maunder Minimum
> of sunspot activity. According to Wikipedia, between 1610-1681 only
> 50 sunspots were recorded as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000.
> On the face of it it looks like a less active Sun leaves Earth too
> cold for comfort.
>
> Prior to the little ice age was the Medieval Warm Period, from maybe
> 800-1300. This is the age of the Vikings and their 450 year colonization
> of Greenland (now mostly a frozen glacier), when reduced pack ice
> on northern seas allowed their ships freer range.
>
> Recent climatology is focusing on the relationship between solar
> output and Earth's temperature (duh, turn up the planet's furnace
> and it gets warmer on Earth!) and the relationship between sunspots
> and solar output.
>
> For about 30 years between the 1940s and 1970s planetary temperature
> was dropping which is the reason for the ICE AGE! scare of the 70s.
> From the 1980s to about 2000 the temperature was warming which led
> to the MELTDOWN! scare that global warming alarmists are still shouting
> today, even though the planet stopped warming in about 2001 and actually
> cooled the past couple of years.
>
> The most damning evidence against current global warming alarmism
> is the fact that about 2.5-3 million years ago Earth entered into
> a cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods that we are still in
> today. The most recent Wisconsin era glaciations began about 70,000
> years ago and the most recent interglacial began about 13000 years
> ago. The Laurentide ice sheet extended as far south as Nevada. Utah's
> Great Salt Lake is the remnant of a glacial "puddle" of meltwater.
>
>
> Sea levels declined from preglacial levels as much as 100 meters
> at the trough of the deepest glaciations. You could walk across the
> Bering Strait and England was part of continental Europe, until some
> of the ice melted and raised sea levels closer to 'normal' levels.
>
>
> This geological era is called the Pleistocene. The damning question
> is, why did all those other global warmings occur which ended all
> those other ice ages, when humans didn't have SUVs yet? If humans
> cause global warming, what caused all those OTHER global warmings?
>
>
> For some reason, wishful thinking maybe, the most recent 12000 years
> since the end of the last ice age is called the Holocene era, as
> if the Pleistocene glaciation cycle has ended for some unexplained
> reason and we're into a permanently warmer new era called the Holocene.
>
>
> This planet is about 4.6 billion years old and is continuously evolving.
> The planet is geologically active, and the Sun is geologically active,
> and there has never been any kind of geological "stability" in the
> solar system. The only constant is that things keep changing. <br/>
>
> So anybody who thinks we can stabilize Earth's climate by riding
> bicycles has not done any homework in geological history. The planet
> did not exist in a state of ecological Eden until us sinners started
> driving trucks. Climate stability is a myth and a wish, not reality.
> The climate will keep changing no matter what we do.
>
> About 300-250 million years ago the continents were still joined
> together as Pangaea (plate tectonics is the science of "continental
> drift"). About 55 million years ago the area that is now the Arctic
> was a little further south and enjoyed an average temperature of
> about 70 degrees F, like Florida today. The entire planet was much
> warmer and lusher than it is today.
>
> There is no evidence of permanent polar ice caps until about 13 million
> years ago, then we had the Pleistocene with its deep ice ages beginning
> about 3 million years ago. The long term trend certainly seems to
> be that the planet is cooling, which makes sense.
>
> The planet began as a collection of hot gases and dust about 4.6
> billion years ago. Over the first maybe 500 million years enough
> energy radiated into space to cool the surface so the crust began
> to form. The crust has been thickening ever since, so it's now between
> 20 and 200 miles thick. The core is still molten, but much of that
> heat is now stored in the thick crust rather than radiating out to
> warm the surface. That's my theory of why we're into this geologically
> recent pattern of ice ages, this ongoing reduction in the geothermal
> component of our surface temperatures.
>
> So Sean is right. We should welcome some global warming and fear
> global cooling, since in fact the planet is cooling in the long trend.
>
>
> In 2005 William Ruddiman, former chairman of the U of Virginia enviro
> sciences dep't, published a paper in the Quaternary Research Reviews
> arguing that "human activities may have averted the next ice age".
> By studying ice core data (the same data Gore misused in his movie)
> Ruddiman concluded, "Without any anthropogenic warming earth's climate
> would no longer be in a full interglacial state (warm period) but
> be well on its way toward the colder temperatures typical of glaciations."
> He thinks human economic activity over the past 8000 years, such
> as burning forests to enhance gathering and hunting and later for
> agriculture, irrigation in Eurasia, livestock production, etc., may
> have generated enough greenhouse gases to blanket the planet and
> forestall the next ice age.
>
> So maybe we better hold off on crushing all those obsolete SUVs.
> One cold winter soon we may want to leave them idling 24/7 to try
> to kickstart some global warming.
Yes, this human wish or belief in our own omnipotence is certainly at work in the minds of the global warmers, like King Canute holding out his mighty hand thinking he could stop the tide!
It's only since about the 1970s that people began thinking our actions might have some impact on the planet. Up to the 1960s and into the 70s humans felt the world was big and we were too small to have any effect on it. Otherwise politically correct cities like Victoria, British Columbia in Canada still pump raw sewage into the ocean claiming the sea is big enough to absorb it. Europe is beginning to clean up the Mediterranean after 1000s of years of treating it like an open sewer.
I'm not anti-environment. I want a clean environment and I'm willing to pay something for that. But I do object to mal-informed environmentalists demanding expensive and counterproductive environment policies that attack beneficial natural chemicals like CO2.
CO2 is not "pollution" and its function as a greenhouse gas is either minimal or nonexistent. Nobody has EVER shown a single piece of scientific proof that CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas. Computerized global warming models ASSUME CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but those models are pathetically inaccurate at predicting real climate changes. They're just models, and the models don't work. Better luck next time.
Plants thrive in a high CO2 environment just like animals like us thrive in a high oxygen environment. NASA data show that over the past 20 years (i.e. since they were first able to measure this) Earth's greencover has increased by 7%. CO2 levels have increased over that period, at least partly from our burning of fossil fuels, so in a world that is worried about food supply for a growing population we should welcome increases in CO2 that enhance agriculture and plant growth generally.
Animals and plants enjoy a symbiotic relationship. Plants exhaust oxygen which is fuel for animals. Animals exhaust CO2 which is food for plants. If deluded environmentalists succeed in reducing human output of CO2 they will be harming plants' optimum environment, not 'saving the planet'.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would be wondering why our masters are promoting this anti-carbon mentality at the same time as they own and support Big Oil. Michael Crichton may be onto something with his "State of Fear" thesis: the masters want to keep people afraid so we are easy to control. Since the Cold War ended they needed a new threat, and found one in Global Warming!!!
Whether or not this was done on purpose it has sure worked to scare people into believing in a phenomenon that doesn't exist. Another motive might be the plan to set up a multi-trillion dollar international carbon trading scheme to further enrich the traders at the expense of the industrial economy that needs oil to survive.
The income tax punishes us for earning a living, but that's not the most comprehensive kind of tax imaginable. Humans emit CO2 every time we exhale our breath, so a carbon market is a tax on existing.
No, most AGW folks doesn't tell us that the recent warming is an El Nino effect. The El Nino effect 1998 is an extreme short period and irrelevant. No AGW people serious enough claims that it proved AGW. But if we talk about 1975 (actually the middle of the 20th century) to 2005, then IPCC AR4 chapter 9 tells us it's 90 percent (a figure politically negotiated) probability that CO2 is the main cause for this increased temperatures.
Instead yo now want to tell us we have not had any effect yet, or?
You made lots of mistakes, but I can't see that [Alpha] made any.
The North Pole... eh? The North Pole spot has the last 100 years had ice every year during every time of the year. You probably mean the Arctic ice. That ice was due to researchers probably completely gone between 6000 and 7000 :
ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2...
Also lots of things indicates that the Arctic ice was smaller during the medieval period. Also, what is the connection between CO2 as a greenhouse gas increasing temperature and the Arctic ice? Explain please! Glaciologs say this has to do with winds and ocean current patterns. Increase in- or less ice on Greenland (it has declined but increases now?) is also a lot du to precipitation, just as the Kilimanjaro glacier is; Al Gore lied about that in his movie Kilimanjaro has become colder the last half century.
There's also no good greeenhouse signature in the late 20th century warming, so why is CO2 the cause?
And what is the cause of increasing CO2 levels? You shall know (AGW folks never tells you) that NASA sais the oceans have sucked up half of the CO2 [a], and at a few 10 percent of the higher CO2 concentration levels is sucked up by increased growing of trees etc.
[a] www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
There's also perfect correlation between temperature anomaly and yearly increase of CO2 since the 1950s :
wattsupwiththat.com/20.../
Finally the CO2 temperature correlation the last century was about 45 percent (decreasing temperature 1945 to 1975), the sun temperature correlation was ~60 percent, and the PDO+AMO temperature correlation was ~85 percent. Think about that.
What I find pathetic is that whenever there's a short warm spell the media hype up about global warming. Proponents have no problem having themselves heard when there's a warm spell. Whenever there's a cold spell a few sceptics speak out and are told that climate is 'long term'.
On a slightly different note - can anyone tell me what causes ice ages? There is no consensus on ice ages. Despite not being able to fathom how past climate change works these so-called 'world's leading scientitsts' are very good at predicting future climate change.?????