Global cooling, not global warming

" Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history.
When people come to know what the truth is,
they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
-- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. K. Itoh, Yokohama National University 

Currently our planet appears to be warming up. The Republic of Maldives is in danger of disappearing. The Arctic ice is melting. Industry  continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Media are filled with stories of flooding, rising water levels, and other apparently clear signs of world wide warming trends. And yet none of this means that tropical temperatures will be the permanent situation for centuries. Instead it may be that this warming is a precursor to an ice age of unknown duration or depth. Read on...

Firstly, it is important to understand that the mathematics of chaotic systems (needed to understand climate) are in their infancy. Such large chaotic probabilistic systems as weather and climate cannot be properly modelled with any degree of accuracy, regardless of the computing power available. The mathematics is insufficiently robust and the models too primitive. Climate is a non-linear chaotic system. Such systems, particularly those involved in cybernetic feedback cannot at this point, be modelled with any accuracy at all. (Chris Monckton's paper in the APS regarding mathematical errors in the IPCC models demonstrates some of the difficulties involved.)

Secondly, if climate patterns are poorly understood, the complex interactions of solar cycles and their interaction with planetary climate are even less well understood.

Consider the (simplified) example of the Malenkovich Cycle which produces major ice ages every 11,500 years or so in conjunction with solar activity. During the advent of a peak in the cycle – i.e. prior to a major ice age - the earth temporarily heats up. This causes oceans to release more moisture as glaciers and ice melts. This extra moisture falls in winter forming more snow than usual, causing glaciers to grow in high regions. Sure enough, this is exactly what is occurring – 90% of the earth's glaciers are growing and have been for the last several decades. Sure enough, some glaciers are melting - viz. the Greenland melt - but not the major percentage of them which are in fact, doing the opposite. The period 1980-98 saw rapid warming with average temperature increasing 0.5o C. However although CO2 has continued to rise from 370ppm to 380ppm, overall temperature increase has been flat. But it will not be for much longer - just as the Pacific decadal oscillation cooled the planet in the years 1945-1977,  the PDO  is again entering a reverse phase - the oceans are cooling.

Further, the Maunder Minimum (from a much shorter solar cycle of just a few centuries) is currently approaching. Sunspot activity for the eleven year cycle has not reappeared following normal cyclic diminution. This is very unusual. Sunspot lows have been highly correlated with global cooling, although of course there is some dissent from such a viewpoint. Regardless, local cooling may be similar to that which froze much of Europe between 1650 and 1715. Note that like the Malenkovich Cycle this may generally be foreshadowed by a short period of solar warming, which the Max Planck Institute has found to be occurring over the last half century. This is sufficient to account for the warming on earth and also Martian ice caps.

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance - i.e. estimated average solar energy received) is roughly 1,368 Watts per square meter at earth surface. This of course changes with these cyclical solar activities. TSI has increased in the past two and a half decades by roughly 0.1%.  Note that a TSI of a mere 0.2% is approximately the same as the energy usage of all of humanity per annum. Hence even a small change in TSI is sufficient to warm or cool the planet. And to precipitate calamitous climate change.

Whilst the HADCRU series shows a clear warming trend, the series is IMHO insufficiently lengthy for any meaningful autocorelative work and certainly not predictive (in the Baysian rather than Fisherian sense). Of course human exploitation of the planet has raised CO2 and causes warming. But such inclusions may be slowing the rate of cooling... Snow has been falling for the first time since the year 1918 in Buenos Aires, as most of South America cools. In Peru people have for the first time in recorded history died from exposure to cold temperatures and thousands more developed respiratory diseases. The Peruvian government declared a state of emergency as crops failed and livestock died from the cold. South Africa has major snowfalls. Australia has experienced the coldest weather on record. New Zealand has seen vineyard die offs from cold. Tibet had suffered its worst snowsfalls in recorded history. In California billions of dollars in crops have been lost to freezing temperatures. Over 95% of South Carolina's peaches have been lost and over 90% of its apples due to unseasonable and lasting frost. South Carolina experience the coldest April temperatures on record. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found 63 local snowfall record over the past year coupled with 115 of the lowest recorded temperatures for over the last 114 years. Overall the United States has experienced the most snow of any winter on record. In Seoul, Korea, temperatures fell to the coldest on record. In Canada the government meterological service has predicted more and more cold and longer lasting winters. The Ers-2 satellite shows Arctic sea levels have continued to fall. Antarctic ice is growing. Satellite imagry confirms increases in Artic ice of 30% - more than that "lost" in the warming trend of recent years.

Add to this the US DARPA research stating that decades long freezing expected for all of Britain and much of the EU. The probability that we are rapidly entering a Malenkovich point grows.

Further, the Holocene climatic cycles for North America from roughly 12,000 BCE to the present rather strongly indicate a periodicity (probably solar forced) culminating in a modern climatic optimum between 1890-2000 CE. What happened last time? The dawn of the medieval glaciation of 1200-1460 CE which destroyed crops (British vineyards disappeared completely) and brought disease and death (bubonic plague, epidemic respiratory ailments) to large sectors of humanity. The little ice age of that time appears to be beginning in our own time. But perhaps given the glacial increase, the ice age this time will not be so small.

This is all contrary to the IPCC's news releases of course. The releases claim panels of 2,500 climate scientists all agree with the IPCC models and hypotheses. This is not the case. The 2,500 scientists were asked to review the report, but a mere  62 completed the review, 55 evidenced serious concerns with the models, data, and conclusions, with a sum of seven in complete support. A very significant number declined to sign the report. In a letter to Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General of the United Nations over 100 academics from around the world argued for a shift in emphasis concerning climate change. Varous lobby groups have since argued that the letter signatories were both biased and in the pay of those who wished to ignore climate change. Yet there the IPCC reports do not attempt to explain or contradict the points made supra or in the letter. Of course CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc. have increased due to human activity.

For example, humans use roughly 2.11e+17 kWh/yr. (Note that here I use an amalgam of UN reports, rather than the more commonly used 1.07e+17).  Suppose we use coal to generate this amount. Each kWh generated distributes roughly  1/4 kg or carbon into the atmosphere as CO2.  Hence coal-only sourced energy would pump 52.75 Pt ( petatonnes) of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Since atmospheric CO2 is only slowly absorbed by the world's oceans, dissipation of even a single year's worth of this CO2 would require a few hundreds of thousands of years. And all the while the accumulating CO2 would act as a giant heat trap - the planet's temperature would, according to the IPCC, rise.

Yet the degree to which these gases have warmed the planet is very much subject to debate as are overall planetary temperature vectors. The many climatologists who discent from the IPCC opinion have asked for further data - many have raised the issue of global cooling being masked by greenhouse gas emissions. Further, data sources have been problematic - one small example: at time of writing GISS anomaly maps are drawn from data streams which are not checked or audited, and from a varying number of stations which themselves are open to fluctuation due to lack of consistant and regular calibration. Yet the IPCC claims the greenhouse hypothesis is accurate. The version they use is ultimately based upon work of G.S. Callendar, C.D. Keeling, and of course S. Arrhenius. Yet it should be noted that IPCC publicatiion contains only small subset of this data which appears, at least to my reading, to contain only selective  data points from this older literature which serve to support the greenhouse hypothesis. Callendar, Keeling, and Arrhenius however support a pre-industrial CO2 level higher by  50ppm more than the levels used by the IPCC in modelling the rise.

While the urge to recycle and the legions of school children being sent out to convince parents not to waste is laudable, the seed change necessary for humanity to really positively impact climate is not likely to occur. Consider the so-called ecological footprint analysis. The technique allows calculation of the number of hectares necessary to sustain a human, taking factors such as geographic location, lifestyle, etc. into account. Most humans live in large cities such as that monument to the absence of nature,Tokyo. Tokyo contains roughtly 33,000,000 humans, or 1/4 of Japan's population. Tokyo's population (exclusive of the millions of pets that must be fed), has a collective ecological footprint of 142 million hectares. This is greater than 1.6 times the productive capacity of their entire country in which they live. In other words, reduction to levels where the ecological footprint was sufficiently small for all of humanity to survive, is singularly unlikely, particularly should the current predicted rate of cooling freeze the world to a greater extent than occured in the 17^th C AC. This I believe to be the case, since the contribution of human stupidity and waste in regards to pollution and removal of the natural atmospheric buffers can be shown to, should solar cooling occur, exacerbate the cycle to such and extent that a small ice age is likely.

On average, the human ecological footprint regardless of place of dwelling is 2.2 hectares. Yet simple analysis shows that the planet contains >1.8 hectares of productive land and water per person. Simply raising all humans currently on the planet to North American material standards would require four additional Earths. That is to say, there is no manner in which the earth can support the current human population in comfort if at all, especially as pollution levels rise.

A seed change is necessary. IMHO this would consist of the following:

1. Population: The planet may be able to sustain a maximum of one child per woman should humanity decide to spend its resources not on military but upon mutual aid and benefit. But it most assuredly cannot sustain the current birth rate, which is of course higher than the death rate by a factor of 2.7 - depending upon cited source.
2. Biodiversity: Re-establishing the bio-diversity existing 500 years ago (I.e. stopping all monocultures,  particularly those pertaining to wood, genetically engineered corn, and the massively wasteful transition to monoculture soy production).
3. Food: Meat production as you may know is responsible for much of the world wide deforestation, the monoculturization of crops, factory  farming, and similar waste. Should humanity adopt vegetarian diets, more climate benefit would entail than possible from all the curb-side recyling projects and other similar false-flag feel-good initiatives combined.
4. Oil and gas: Eliminating all use of fossil/carbon fuels. Focus on dramatically increasing the funding alternative energy research to produce low-cost low-carbon technology. If the price of renewable energy dropped below the cost of fossil fuels by mid-century, everyone - including China and India - would switch to the greener alternatives.
5. War:  War is a major cause of pollution.  Consider for example the massive amounts of pollution in the form of carcinogenic, depleted uranium residue currently carried by the jet stream around the planet. This particular residue was generated by the wholesale destruction of ecosystems via saturation bombing with internationally banned weapons by certain rogue countries. Or consider the continued use of biological weoponry, high altitude UVA flights (highly destructive of the atmosphere), and similar egregous genocidal devices by so many nations. All of this is a leading cause of environmental destruction on a world wide basis.
6. Shelther: Currently most of humanity lacks affordable shelter from the elements. Every human could be housed in environmentally friendly sustainable shelter for a mere fraction the cost of sustaining the current weapons stockpiles of western countries. For a little more, the resource-wasting heating/cooling systems used in houses in most of these same countries could be replaced with greener systems. Proper shelter would massively reduce the amount of pollution produced in both rich and poor nations, for obvious reasons.
7. Peak oil: This has already occurred. The earth's supply is rapidly being depleted, despite known huge underground resevoirs which are simply too expensive to exploit. With global cooling, heating will be problematic unless solar, wave power, wind power, and similar technologies are invested in to the same or greater extent than is currently the case with oil.
8. Depots and greed: Currently essentially all of the worlds financial resources are being funnelled into the hands of a few warmongering despots. 90% of the worlds economic wealth is held by less than 1% if its inhabitants, 94% of whom live in the United States or one of its three major colonies.

Sadly the probability that any of these points will be considered in time to save humanity, approaches zero. Additionally the exponentially increasing use of coal fired burners in China, India, and the United States coupled with the current birth rate of three humans per second is guaranteed to soon poison the atmosphere before climate change causes the probable mass starvation and death of billions.

The hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor remains IMHO unproven. Even so, suppose that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be dramatically decreased. How might one do so? Rather than focusing on such intellectual non-sequitors  as "carbon offset (politician-speak for eliminating corporate responsibility) funding must be augmented for research into non-traditional sources of energy. Low-cost low-carbon technologies must be funded. Money for this is readily available - simply cease funding war (to the tune of multiple trillions of dollars per annum) and put the money instead into saving humanity. Should the price of renewable energy drop below the cost of fossil fuels even the world's worst polluters - Canada (the infamous massively polluting  "Tar Sands" Project), the United States, China, and India - would switch to these alternatives. This strategy, known as the Copenhagen Consensus, can be shown to  ultimately cost less by far than continuing oil and coal dependence (and the wars of genocide which have resulted).

GlobGlobal climate change is real. Humans are affecting climate. It is the direction of the thermometer however, which is IMHO questionable. And so while such strategies as the Copenhagen Consensus and other purposefully sabotage initiative could potentiality greatly benefit humanity, it is in my opinion pointless to pretend that humans can reverse climate change with current technologies any more than the inhabitants of Troy could battle the ebbing of the sea. For example the earth's magnetic pole is moving at over 60Km per annum - in 1904 it moved at 9Km. We can no more alter this magnetic vector or its effects than we can alter the sunspot cycle and its effects.

The blind belief by many that new technologies will prevent climate disaster is an appalling naivety. The many heads of state who are  planning to use geoengineering in this regard are fooling themselves. And wasting time. Yet there is much that current technology could to do obviate or at least mediate the most severe aspects of climate change,  and indeed save much of humanity. Sadly the window of opportunity for alleviation of suffering that current technologies could bring (better insulation, alternate forms of heating, transportation systems that can operate in extreme cold, etc.. ad nauseam) is rapidly passing. With the only political response to all of this dominated by the tautological psychopathologies of neo-Straussian demagoguery, it will be interesting to see if anyone survives. 

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them"  -- Albert Einstein.

 (Citations...)

Update: Decades ago Big Tobacco argued the cigarette smoking was safe. They did this in part by selectively using the science that showed cigarettes were carcinogenic and twisting it to their own ends. Currently Big Oil and the Coal Lobby have begun to do the same with climate study. Notable in this assault have been the singularly unscientific disinformation sallies of Britain's Lord Moncton. The result has been a twisting the global cooling hypothesis to argue that emissions from oil, coal, and similar  toxic products and production methods for these products have no relation to climate.  By so doing Moncton, his imitators, and the industries they allegedly represent are IMHO likely to cause greater pain and sorrow to more humans than Big Tobacco ever did.