Has it already started?
Earth’s new climate will affect much more than the energy sector. Abdussamatov leaves us with a dire warning.
“The world must start preparing for the new Little Ice Age right now. Politicians and business leaders must make full economic calculations of the impact of the new Little Ice Age on everything — industry, agriculture, living conditions, development. The most reasonable way to fight against the new Little Ice Age is a complex of special steps aimed at support of economic growth and energy-saving production to adapt mankind to the forthcoming period of deep cooling.”
An overheated planet has never been a threat, say climate skeptics, not today, not ever in human history. An underheated planet, in contrast, is a threat humans have repeatedly faced over the last millennium, and now we’re due again.
To me, the evidence is quite a bit more compelling than it is for warming. He’s relying on history and empirical data, not computer models.
We must all play a part in trying to ameliorate the worst problems a little ice age might bring.
I’m prepared to share my home with co-ed Scandinavian climate refugees. I’ll even let them eat surstromming on the patio in bikinis.
Thought experiment — consider the climate in much the same way we consider the economy. Think about the “global temperature” (as if there were such a thing) in much the same way we think about the “activity” in the economy. Things heat up, things cool down, there is rarely a “Goldilocks” moment, and there is a central authority (bank, in the case of the economy) responsible for reacting, counter-cyclically, to keep things from running away in either direction.
In this analogy, is “heating up” (inflation) the greater danger? Or is “cooling” (deflation) what spirals into disaster?
In economics and banking, “heating” and deliberation induction of currency inflation into the economy is an essential tool of regulation. “A little” inflation is even considered desirable, compared to the risk of letting deflation — cooling — afflict the global financial climate.
Now imagine a central carbon regulatory authority responsible for the global temperature. Isn’t it fairly easy to imagine that GIVEN such responsibilities, that body would start DELIBERATELY issuing extra carbon credits to favored activities — much the way central banks fund certain national debts and favored kinds of investment — on the argument that a little warming, as required by models, will be better than the risk of temperature deflation and an ice age? That the central climate bank would pump CO2 — perhaps literally — into the climate in order to bring the temperature indexes up and down at the whim of the board of governors?
Not that this would work, mind you. But as a measure of control — chasing after a desired goal…
I see it coming.
In order for that to happen, you have to believe that CO2 is the magical climate-control knob that the warm mongers do.
“In order for that to happen, you have to believe that CO2 is the magical climate-control knob that the warm mongers do.”
Right. And it’s not.
CO2 “might” cause some warming. All the greenhouse gases might cause some warming.
I would say the greenhouse effect theory that says that greenhouse gases add 33 K to global average temperature is false.
I would say that the idea that only greenhouse gas can cause this 33 K of warming is obviously false.
Or obviously it is a indefensible position.
I agree that idea that an Ideal Blackbody [which is a thought experiment- and ideal blackbody doesn’t exist in real world] would have a planet at earth distance from the Sun having a uniform temperature of around 5 C. I don’t say average temperature,as every square meter of surface everywhere would a have constant and uniform temperature of around 5 C, because an ideal blackbody makes a uniform temperature and not different temperature which can then be “averaged”.
Or the purpose of using an ideal blackbody is get a rough idea of what should be Earth’s average temperature should be and I agree that roughly Earth average temperature should be about 5 C.
I would say the main problem or confusion regarding “global warming” is not with the planet Earth, but with the planet Venus.
Ideal blackbody indicate earth should around 5 C and Earth is around 5 C. Earth gets about 1360 watts per square meter. Divide by 4 [spherical area vs disk area of sunlight] is 340 watts.
An ideal blackbody would absorb on average 340 watts per square meter and on average emit 340 watts per square meter and it would be uniform temperature of 5 C.
Apply this to Venus: 2800 watts divide by 4 indicates Venus distance absorb and emits about 700 watts per square meter.
And blackbody emitting say 850 watts should be about 350 K [76 C]. And Venus surface temperature is thought to be around:
“Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)”
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
So if stupid one would say Venus should have average temperature of about 75 C and instead it’s 464 C.
But it should be noted that at 1 atm of pressure at the elevation of sky of Venus, it is about 70 C.
Or if you are comparing apples to apples, the ideal blackbody thought experiment does give one rough idea of what the average temperature should be for Earth and Venus.
So roughly I accept that Earth should be around 5 C and it is around 5 C.
The climate science is why does earth average temperature [and climate] vary. Or what causes glacial and interglacial periods.
Or in terms of this post topic, are we going to have another Little Ice Age? So during our current interglacial period, we have had many cool and warm period and what is called the Little Ice Age [LIA] most agree ended in 1850 AD. Or presently [+1850 AD} has warmed by about .08 C and has had rise in sea levels of about 8 inches.
Now during our last Little Ice Age, the average sea level dropped by a few inches. And the Little Ice Age lasted for centuries.
The article talking about some decades of cooling- our last Little Ice Age was not some decades of cooling, rather it had decades of cooling and decades of warming but with lower average temperature over longer periods than few decades.
I would say to call a period of cooling a “little ice age” one needs global advancement of glaciers and sea level drop of at least more than few inches.
I would say that we are presently recovering from the Little Ice Age, and there has been cooling lasting more than decade and warming for more than decade, and we will have “bumps in road” of this recovery from LIA.
“by about .08 C” should be “by about .8 C”
Or probably better to say, “about 1 C” or around .8 C [+/- .3 C]
–pouncer
December 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM
Thought experiment — consider the climate in much the same way we consider the economy. Think about the “global temperature” (as if there were such a thing) in much the same way we think about the “activity” in the economy. Things heat up, things cool down, there is rarely a “Goldilocks” moment, and there is a central authority (bank, in the case of the economy) responsible for reacting, counter-cyclically, to keep things from running away in either direction.
In this analogy, is “heating up” (inflation) the greater danger? Or is “cooling” (deflation) what spirals into disaster? —
Unlike warming there is runaway effect connected to cooling. Though rather than runaway effect, one might say that cooling has tendency to remain being cold.
What talking about is having snow persist year long and building up each year- glaciers.
“Presently, 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Glacierized areas cover over 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles). Glaciers store about 75 percent of the world’s fresh water.”
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html
And we in the interglacial period and have been for about 10,000 years.
During glacial period there is much higher percentage of land area covered by glaciers- and that has cooling effect.
It has significant cooling affect on land areas, though land area are only about 30% of the global surface.
The effects of cooling from glacier is similar to the effect of urban heat island effects upon the effect of causing warming. Urban Heat Island effect [UHI] have an immeasurable effect upon global average temperature, but they have very easily to measure warming effect upon the localized urban area. And urban areas occupy about 3% of the global land areas. And some urban area don’t have much of measurable of warming due to UHI. And similarly glaciers different effect upon cooling depending on there geographic location- and other factors.
Another factor is for example, is the elevation of the glacier. Or it’s accepted that large and high elevation of the Antarctic ice cap has a large global cooling effect. And the temperate zone ice caps during the glacier period could have similar effect as the ice cap of Antarctic- ie,
wiki: “The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs— from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day, ”
But main thing about earth average temperature is the temperature of the surface ocean, and most of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the ocean and most of solar energy reaches the tropical zone [40% of total global surface area]. And in the tropics about 80% is ocean vs about 20% land area.
Or the key aspect to understand what causes global warming or cooling, has to be related to Earth’s oceans.
Do any of these climate alarmists know that we live on a globe?
It’s got to be us white guys fault that it’s too hot at the equator a too cold at the poles. The next thing you know is white guys will be telling everyone that prosperity allows people to adjust their personal environment?
The solution is to nuke the moon because surfers are the real problem.
There’s no need to change anything. When the alarmists were predicting a New Ice Age in the 70s, the solution was to reduce fossil fuel use. Now they’re predicting Global Warming, the solution is to reduce fossil fuel use. When the Little Ice Age comes, the solution will be… to reduce fossil fuel use.
The left hate reliable energy, because it enables the West to defend itself against the left’s Soviet masters. ‘Climate’ is just an excuse to eliminate it.
And note that the militant climatists also dislike nuclear and hydroelectric, despite no CO2 emissions. Could it be because they, unlike solar and wind, are reliable and (absent government sourced expense) affordable?
I’ve been talking aboutthe coming Maunder Minimum for more than 25 years, including it in some of my books and stories. I tried to write some nonfiction, but none of the magazines willing to publish my work were interested. I’m glad Abdussamatov has the scientific credentials to send it mainstream.
If we ever actually do develop an effective approach to adjusting global climate, ultimately it will be banned because global changes will leave somebody warmer than they want to be, and somebody else cooler than they want to be.
That’s why the alarmists never actually propose anything that would make a difference to the global climate — only to the standard of living in the developed world, and to the hopes for a better standard of living in the developing world.