Seeking Alpha

Robert Wagner's  Instablog

Robert Wagner
Send Message
Professional Credentials: The reports that I write are my personal research and opinions. They are not associated with any firm or organization, and are not intended to be taken as investment recommendations or advice. They combine my passions of economics, finance, writing and education, and... More
  • Investors Shouldn't Buy Into The Global Warming Fear Mongering  8 comments
    Aug 20, 2013 2:16 PM

    Temperatures have been flat for over a decade, and temperatures are threatening to invalidate the IPCC's forecast model at the 95% confidence level, but like an unwanted house guest, this global warming issue just won't go away. The imminent crisis du jour making the rounds on the financial media is that the melting arctic ice will release a huge amont of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere creating a spike in global temperatures and costing the globe $60 trillion. Apparently CO2 wasn't panning out, so now the focus shifts to how current green house gases aren't causing warming, but melting Arctic ice may release some methane in the future causing the global warming CO2 was thought to be causing...but data has proven it isn't. The problem I have with this theory is if the IPCC data shows there is no warming for over a decade, what is causing the Arctic ice to melt?

    (click to enlarge)

    I like to think of the climate scientists as a bunch of novice investors that are seeing a dead cat bounce or suckers rally for the first time. In the 1970's a short cold spell resulted in the coming ice age hysteria as the climate experts made all sorts of doom and gloom scenarios where the world would soon be covered in ice if governments didn't act. Then in the mid-1990s a short spike in temperatures exaggerated by the cooling of Mt Pinatubo followed by the warming of El-Nino, resulted in the global warming hysteria. Once temperatures started to flatten, the focus turned to "climate change." Changing climate by the way is the normal condition for the earth. Ask a climate change expert when the Earth's climate hasn't been changing and watch how fast the conversation changes to another topic.

    (click to enlarge)

    The facts are the Arctic ice had a rapid loss this summer due to Arctic storms, and has since been rapidly recovering. There is nothing man or the government can do to prevent naturally occurring storms and bad weather, nor should we even try.

    The storminess of late July has continued into early August. A large storm has consumed a vast section of the Arctic this week.

    "I just spotted what appears to be a massive cyclone - bigger than all of Greenland

    Finally I get some help exposing this nonsense, as NASA has rushed to support my skepticism. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, strongly disagrees with the methane theory is and is quick to point out that there have been geologically recent events that most likely resulted in the complete loss of Arctic sea ice, and ice core data proves no such warming spikes occured. It is a bad day for climate science when a scientist at NASA is no longer silenced by the threat of being labled a "denier" or "flat earther."

    One line of evidence Schmidt cites comes from ice core records, which include two warm Arctic periods that occurred 8,000 and 125,000 years ago, he said. There is strong evidence that summer sea ice was reduced during these periods, and so the methane-release mechanism (reduced sea ice causes sea floor warming and hydrate melting) could have happened then, too. But there's no methane pulse in ice cores from either warm period, Schmidt said. "It might be a small thing that we can't detect, but if it was large enough to have a big climate impact, we would see it,"

    Facts are global sea ice is at or near a normal levels, with no real discernable trend caused by global warming.

    (click to enlarge)

    While the Arctic has lost some ice, the Antarctic has gained ice, so the net change has basically been zero. I find it difficult to understand how global warming can cause loss of ice in the North and ice gain in the South. Maybe too many cows in the North are producing too much methane? But if that is the case, why are we attacking "Big Oil" for causing global warming? We should be attacking McDonalds.

    While 2012 did fall outside normal levels of Arctic sea ice loss, 2013 is within the norm, even after a severe storm season.

    (click to enlarge)

    Arctic temperatures also haven't shown much if any warming over the last 10 years, and current temperatures are way below the temperatures of the early 1980s.

    Sea Ice concentration is actually greater than it was 5 years ago.

    (click to enlarge)

    In conclusion, the next time investors see portfolio managers hyping up global warming on the financial channels, they should take their comments with a grain of salt. Climate experts are legendary for their constantly wrong forecasts, and endless "tipping points" that get passed without notice. The facts are the investments support by the global warming theory are awful investments, even by their supporters own admission, and anyone that takes the time to actually look behind the curtain of the "science" backing the climate hysteria will soon discover why so man of their forecasts have been wrong, climate science is simply very very bad "science," and investors should avoid using it as a basis for building a retirement portfolio.

    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Themes: market-outlook
Back To Robert Wagner's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (8)
Track new comments
  • Tin Lizzy
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    Nice article Robert. If you would like to read about a better theory of climate change try reading 'The Chilling Stars' by Nigel Calder. It's a little out of date now but it can still direct you to some really good, but politically incorrect, climate science that is taking place in the hard science 'underground', primarily in the fields of geology and physics.
    Elizabeth
    20 Aug 2013, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2302) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanks Elizabeth, as you can seem for this being in the Instablog, getting articles like this published is difficult. I'm aware of the disagreements. I personally know a few of the popular skeptics. I live near the Byrd Polar Research Center so I get to attend a lot of events. With the politics, governments and media favoring this nonsense, it is hard to get the truth out. I'll pick up the book you recommend, thanks for the recommendation. Bob
    20 Aug 2013, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2302) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Warming of the N Atlantic is a cycle, and has nothing to do with CO2.

     

    During the 20th century, scientists believed that the sun emitted energy steadily enough that it couldn't significantly affect the Earth's climate. In 2001, a Science study found that solar highs and lows coincided with terrestrial climate cycles. It was a long-term trend—the climate of the northern Atlantic Ocean has warmed and cooled nine times in the last 12,000 years. The sun undergoes small-scale changes in strength too, and throughout most of the 1900s, a considerable increase made scientists wonder if short-term hotter output made for a hotter Earth. But then, by the beginning of this century, the sun's strength declined, and warming of the Earth's surface temperature stalled.
    http://bit.ly/14ZbVx1
    22 Aug 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • Tin Lizzy
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    Dear Robert:
    Technically, the 20th century scientists are correct. The absolute variation of solar intensity is not great enough to explain observed climatic variation. That is one of the reasons that the greeenhouse gas theory of climate change gained traction. What scientists (those pesky geologists and physicists who have not abandoned hard science for politics and environmentalist religion) are now discovering is that it is the interplay between the solar wind (which varies with solar cycles) and incoming cosmic rays, that amplify the raw solar signal by controlling cloudiness on Earth. It all comes down to albedo. It is a really cool theory that has been confirmed by experiment and can be found everywhere in the geological record at scales ranging from tens to millions of years. And our instrumental record is finally becoming long enough to pick it up there as well.

     

    This solar forcing theory can explain glacial episodes, which the greenhouse gas theory cannot. In my field (geology) the global warming alarmists have been disappearing over the last 5 years as fast as rats leaving a sinking ship. The greenhouse gas theory of global arming will eventually be considered as ridiculous as Piltdown Man. It was initially a valid theory but it has been co-opted by ideologues who have transfomed it into a hoax.
    Elizabeth
    24 Aug 2013, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2302) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » That Piltdown Man is an outstanding analogy:
    http://bit.ly/1decPzP

     

    And I don't think people understand how critical the field of geology is about climate change and global warming:
    http://bit.ly/1decPzR
    24 Aug 2013, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Tin Lizzy
    , contributor
    Comments (98) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Piltdown Man is having an odd resurrection isn't he?

     

    Here is an interesting article about the agricultural benefits of recent rises in CO2.

     

    http://on.wsj.com/15bBulx

     

    There is an interesting theory that flowering plants (C3) faced extinction around 34 million years ago, due to declines in CO2 levels. C3 plants cannot survive CO2 levels below about 150 ppm. According to this theory, this crisis led to the rise that C4 plants, mainly grasses, which could tolerate the dry, hot, low CO2 climate of the time. Advocates of AGW are, of course, hotly contesting this theory, since it goes against their doctrine/dogma.
    26 Aug 2013, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • ace70078
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    Robert, I have to say that I love 90% of everything you write on here. Ever since Mike Stathis left (or got booted), I have found you as my favorite contributor. Keep up the good work!
    29 Aug 2013, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Robert Wagner
    , contributor
    Comments (2302) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » LOL, I greatly appreciate that comment.
    29 Aug 2013, 03:04 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.