Are Global Warming Advocates Just Full of Hot Air? Is Global Cooling a More Accurate Characterization?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Part 5 of its global warming warning in January 2014 to let the world know how perilous continuation on the present industrialization path should be perceived in the context of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
At just about the time that report was coming out, snow covered Cairo for the first time in 112 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/cairo-snow_n_4441049.html
In the United States, 2013 showed the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded, and that year now stands as one of the coldest in history. http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/2013-ten-coldest-years-history/
The volume of Antarctic ice has reached record high levels this year. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html And new data about the level of the Antarctic land mass shows how wrong past judgments have been due to faulty data. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423
From HFS analysis, investors closely watching weather for signals on when to buy and sell stocks related directly to temperature changes, no one should depend on any IPCC reports. What can investors depend on?
One answer has been offered by http://www.accesswire.com in a three-part series of analyses based on less popular yet reliable weather data. In a recent publication of the first part, ‘global cooling’ most accurately describes how weather is now changing and how it will most likely continue to change over the next two decades. Here at HFS, we call that a trend. The trend appears to be measured almost exclusively on the basis of sun activity, not human activity on earth. Such a new and perhaps radical view of climate change, from an investor’s standpoint, deserves close watching. What do you think?
Seriously, some analysts should not only read some weather stats but learn to interpret them correctly and stop confusing [i]weather[/i] with [i]climate[/i].
The ippc report shows that the sea level has risen since the 19th century with and increased rate during the 20th century. The sea temperature went up too, which is a very good indicator of of a global warming. The sea is the most important indicator of mid term climate changes simply because it is the biggest energy store on this planet. It takes more than a bit of local cold weather to influence the average global sea temperature.
Cairo was covered with show? Wooha! There it went!
This winter we had no snow here (and we should have some), but temperatures of up to +14°C in January (which should be -5°C), does that cancel Cairo?
… but that is [i]weather[/i] and not a sign of a global cooling or global warming or a [i]climate[/i] change.
The USA had a cold winter caused by a polar vortex?
Weather again – the rest of the world experienced one of the warmest winters since the start of weather monitoring.
“And new data about the level of the Antarctic land mass shows how wrong past judgments have been due to faulty data.”
Are you sure that the judgement of climate changes was wrong because of that? The height of the ice shield on the land masses was wrong, but were the the visible and measurable changes wrong too? I don’t think so. Even if the bedrock would be another 50m lower it would have almost no impact on the global climate despite adding another bunch of km³ of ice to the previously known antarctic ice mass.
The volume of ice did indeed [i]not[/i] reach record levels this year in the longer term statistic – only in a very small period of a few years. The thickness of sea ice is still way lower than it was 50 years ago (look it up – it is all in the linked sources).
Side note: Changes of glacier mass in some areas can be caused by changes of humidity in the air too – meaning: A small change of the weather pattern can cause it.
All that can be easily seen if one bothers to dig through the data, read the whole reports and does not only pick those [i]parts[/i] of the short conclusion that fits to ones assumptions.
The main problem [i]I[/i] see in the whole climate discussion is, that many of the participants seem to have a short attention span, do not manage to wade through the complete reports of the scientists, jump on short term data to prove that all existing long term models are wrong. I wonder how the long term models managed to correctly predict the climate changes with a quite high accuracy since 50 years and give a good explanation of the [i]global[/i] climate in the past while many those weather-with-climate-confusing hysterics were not.
PS: Look up “global dimming” too …
Our around 100 years of reliable data, if they are reliable for so long, is far from enough to cry wolf. We just do not have enough date to predict the weather for a month to come, so there’s no way in hell we can say for shure that the climate change is driven by humans or not.
I’m not saying we should continue to pollute as hell, that’s unwise anyway, but it might be a good idea to start with the tings we should do something with. The litter in the ocean, saving rainforest ++
Weather is complicated because it is highly chaotic – climate is a lot easier:
Amount of energy input – amount of energy output = energy that heats up the earth.
If that rises, the temperature rises.
You can’t argue with physics about that.
Fact: At the moment we have a lower than awaited amount of energy input (our sun takes a little nap despite it should be very active atm).
Fact 2: We have an additional global dimming of about 4% (meaning 4% of the sunlight – i.e. energy – is reflected back before it can reach the ground to heat up the air or the oceans).
Fact 3: We have no falling temperatures.
There must be a reason for it. If it is not CO₂ or methane, there must be something else keeping the temperatures at the level we have now. I am open for guesses and even wild speculation – but nothing changes the facts that there is something preventing the cool-down of our planet despite it should happen because the single biggest energy source of our planet, the sun, does indeed take a nap. This can be easily seen for everyone who is watching for sunspots and it can be easily measured and was measured since quite a long period by now …
A nice graphic of the past activity data and the predicted cycle as it would have happened if the sun would have followed the usual pattern:
http://lv-twk.oekosys.tu-berlin.de/project/lv-twk/images/gifs/002-sunspots-3.gif
A couple of grammatical observations. QuHno, your initial statement of the second law of thermodynamics might be somewhat inaccurate to physicists. Essentially, whether one focuses on the planet or a beaker full of chemicals, the principle you are describing has been accepted for a couple of centuries as an immutable law of physics, which is that when one form of energy converts to another some part of that energy is lost in the conversion. As it relates to climate, that means that when sunlight hits the planet, its conversion to other forms of energy leave some residual energy in the form of global climate. It is not a difficult idea because it is so commonly regarded as immutable, at the level of basic physics. Yet, when observing LENR in 1989, the physicists pointed fingers of scorn at the chemists in support of LENR experiments, asserting a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Today LENR produces reliable and predictable energy in Greece, Sweden, Italy, and Germany. Yet, LENR is not considered a ‘fact’ in the same way the second law is a ‘fact.’ I am reminded of how much a of fact existed around the idea that the planet is flat. People who disagreed were executed, sometimes summarily.
My point is simply that restatement of established laws often clouds the discussion more than clarifies it. Further, facts are merely a function of social consensus. Facts change, and they are never immutable laws of the cosmos, no matter how much we wish they were. Facts, at a basic level, are accepted opinions.
So when you suggest that climate prediction relies on macro principles and measurements while weather fluctuates so chaotically that no known math can find the next cusp, it probably leaves most readers ‘tharn.’ (Tharn is the state of rabbits frozen in indecision, coined in the lovely novel “Watership Down.” I apply the term more broadly to refer to blog readers overwhelmed with data and opinion beyond their present processing capacities.)
My blog article admittedly failed to label climate arguments in contrast to weather observations. Yet, my wife, a nurse with no background in physics and only biochemistry as it relates to medical practice, found the article to be quite informative, as have several hundred other readers in the past 24 hours. If we must dive into weeds of technical analysis, we need some way to make it readable, even fun. At least, that’s my bias.
One last interesting calculation: The sun’s pattern, both observable and calculable, despite our diminutive time perception, runs at a frequency of 41,000 years. That presents plenty of time for chaotic fluctuation.
” Today LENR produces reliable and predictable energy in Greece, Sweden, Italy, and Germany.”
I have visited their website I found no address of a place where I could visit such an energy plant. It would be nice if you could share such information, provided you have got the addresses.
Additionally I have found no papers of a peer review of the theory that the process indeed violates the laws of thermodynamics. Science can only work if it is open. Peer review is one of the basic processes and falsification is the other principle in science. As long as I can find nothing in that regard, I remain [i]very[/i] skeptical. There have been several people in the past with similar claims and until today each single claim was dispelled.
… one of the sun patterns, there are some short term patterns like the 7 and the 11 year cycle too – and our sun is, like every variable star, always good for a surprise. It is in constant change and the inner physics of the sun is extreme in all regards…
btw: Fun fact: Did you know that the photon that leaves the sun surface today was “produced” about 3000 years in the past?
Just got around to reading this post. A few comments: Satellite data for over 40 years shows no discernible change in the Earth’s Albedo (a measure of reflected sunlight from the atmosphere). This shows that atmospheric pollution is not a significant component of the thermal balance of the planet (at present). Your foregoing discussion of solar output variation touches on some of the difficulties in determining the actual long-term thermal equilibrium of the earth, the other major component is orbital mechanics that currently lead to roughly 100,000 years of ‘Ice Age’ followed by about 15,000 years of warming. We are at present near the end of the latest 15,000 year warming period.
If another ice age is about to begin (and some of them took as little as 100 years to get going) then, human caused climate change is a laughably small component of the over-all picture. This is not to imply that we should not do anything to minimize our negative impacts on the thermal balance.