Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’
New Ice Age

In 2010 we discussed the possibility of a Dalton minimum here. The British media now report:

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Journey to Perplexity puts the implications thus:

From the memoirs of Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, a blast from the past reporting on the Little Ice Age and the horrible effects of global cooling!  An excerpt from Chapter XLIV:

One of the reasons Madame de Maintenon had brought forward, which much assisted her in opposing the siege of Lille, was the excessive cold of this winter [1708-09]. The winter was, in fact, terrible; the memory of man could find no parallel to it. The frost came suddenly on Twelfth Night, and lasted nearly two months, beyond all recollection. In four days the Seine and all the other rivers were frozen, and,—what had never been seen before,—the sea froze all along the coasts, so as to bear carts, even heavily laden, upon it. Curious observers pretended that this cold surpassed what had ever been felt in Sweden and Denmark. The tribunals were closed a considerable time. The worst thing was, that it completely thawed for seven or eight days, and then froze again as rudely as before. This caused the complete destruction of all kinds of vegetation—even fruit-trees; and others of the most hardy kind, were destroyed. The violence of the cold was such, that the strongest elixirs and the most spirituous liquors broke their bottles in cupboards of rooms with fires in them, and surrounded by chimneys, in several parts of the chateau of Versailles. As I myself was one evening supping with the Duc de Villeroy, in his little bedroom, I saw bottles that had come from a well- heated kitchen, and that had been put on the chimney-piece of this bed- room (which was close to the kitchen), so frozen, that pieces of ice fell into our glasses as we poured out from them. The second frost ruined everything. There were no walnut-trees, no olive-trees, no apple-trees, no vines left, none worth speaking of, at least. The other trees died in great numbers; the gardens perished, and all the grain in the earth. It is impossible to imagine the desolation of this general ruin. Everybody held tight his old grain. The price of bread increased in proportion to the despair for the next harvest. The most knowing resowed barley where there had been wheat, and were imitated by the majority. They were the most successful, and saved all; but the police bethought themselves of prohibiting this, and repented too late! Divers edicts were published respecting grain, researches were made and granaries filled; commissioners were appointed to scour the provinces, and all these steps contributed to increase the general dearness and poverty, and that, too, at a time when, as was afterwards proved, there was enough corn in the country to feed all France for two years, without a fresh ear being reaped.

Particularly given the rest of the World’s woes this is not good news. While we hope we are wrong about the global economy, we pray we are wrong about the increasing probability of an imminent ice age. The governments responses to the GFC are making the inevitable downturn worse. They have kicked the adjustment can down the road at the cost of making the inevitable adjustments more painful. Just as the State stepped in to mitigate the effect of the little ice age and “all these steps contributed to increase the general dearness and poverty” so with the GFC. I have no doubt our industrious leaders will similarly exacerbate the detrimental effects global coldening. Just as they have for global warming.

Make no mistake governments have through their plethora of policies and grants done real damage in the name of mitigating the effects of global warming. People have gone cold, hungry and without medical care because of the resultant perversion of public policy preferences. Those kind hearted Greens and their enablers have blood on their hands. This may include you, your family or friends. If so, then repent your position. Confess your mistakes and try to undo the evil done in the name of stopping global warming. As  Confucius said “A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake”. To err is human and we are all only too human. Something Mercury Malcolm should consider.

The one advantage of concern about an ice age is it presents the possibility of continued funding to academic climate scientists if human induced warming concerns are dismissed by policy makers. No longer will climate alarmists be faced with the choice of continuing to sing from the warmist hymn book or finding a new career. They can simply change the nature of their concerns. After all, it would not be the first time. This may speed up the rate at which the discipline recants, helping to stop the implementation of climate alarmist policies. This will save lives and reduce poverty.

 

 

 
Reinsurance costs declining

Noticed this in  the Financial Times:

Reinsurance costs set to decline

The prices that insurers pay to offload some of their risks to the global reinsurance industry are to drop for a second year after a lack of very expensive disasters and struggling economies have put pressure on rates.

Premium costs are set to fall 5-10 per cent globally at the key January 1 renewal date, when more than 60 per cent of all non-life reinsurance contracts are renegotiated. The decline is not as big as some in the reinsurance industry had feared, according to experts at the three leading brokers.

The story of 2010 was one of near misses for the industry, as high levels of natural and man-made catastrophe activity led to surprisingly moderate losses.

Three large earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and New Zealand led to less than $11bn of total losses because of low relative insured property damage, while the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record somehow saw no storms make costly landfall in the US.

The most expensive event of the year, BP’s $20bn-plus oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, caused only about $1bn of insurance losses as the UK energy group retains most of its own insurance risks.

James Vickers of Willis, the third-biggest global broker, said: “This was a year when reinsurers slightly got away with it. There were some losses, so underwriting results will not be as good as 2009, but the industry is in good shape and there is a degree of over-capitalisation.”

Dominic Christian, chief executive of Aon Benfield, Willis’s larger rival, said that in spite of the losses that occured, reinsurance capital remained well in excess of demand from primary insurers, many of which are struggling to maintain their own rates as economic activity recovers only slowly in most parts of the world, and especially the developed world, where most policies are sold.

While not significant in and of itself, imagine the cacophony of noise the anthropogenic global warming crowd would set up if the movement had been in the other direction. We will know sanity is reasserting itself when reports that can be spun to suggest global warming get the same media coverage as this one. Have you seen this reported on the TV, newspaper and radio? I think not.

Mind you, given the attempts to use global coldening as evidence of global warming almost anything can be spun, if your ideological drive is strong enough.

The Financial Times link requires registration (free). But Bloomberg have posted here.

 
CO2 trading – Your loss, speculators gain

I have updated the post A Dalton Minimum to emphasize how:

The Sun drives climate change: A seemingly obvious fact that somehow eludes our climate alarmist modelers.

Speculators will profit from global carbon trading: Speculators such as investment banks and the likes of George Soros will make billions or even trillions from any global carbon trading scheme. Trading in financial or carbon related instruments is a zero sum game. For every winner there has to be a loser. It does not create value, it simply transfers wealth from one party to the trade to another. In this case from you to speculators. Anything they make comes from our pockets.

The main addition being the following extract:

There are solid grounds for believing in the effects of the sun on climate. Our understanding of the science behind climate change may finally be catching up with Jevons:

A NOT-SO-QUIET SOLAR SURPRISE: Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and elsewhere have discovered that Earth was bombarded last year (2008) with high levels of solar energy at a time when the Sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared…. Gibson and colleagues studied another solar phenomenon: discharges of high-speed streams of energy within the solar wind that carry turbulent magnetic fields out into the solar system. Comparing the current solar minimum with measurements during the last minimum in 1996, the researchers found that even though the sunspots were the lowest they have been in 75 years, the Sun’s electromagnetic impact on the outer reaches of the atmosphere was three times greater.

and:

Researchers Say Sun Cycle Alters Earth’s Climate: The team first confirmed an earlier theory, that the slight increase in solar energy during the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone. The energy warms the air in the stratosphere over the tropics, where sunlight is most intense, while also stimulating the production of additional ozone there that absorbs even more solar energy. Since the stratosphere warms unevenly, with the most pronounced warming occurring at lower latitudes, stratospheric winds are altered and, through a chain of interconnected processes, end up strengthening tropical precipitation.

At the same time, the increased sunlight at solar maximum causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific, where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce. That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing additional water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains and reinforcing the effects of the stratospheric mechanism.

The top-down influence of the stratosphere and the bottom-up influence of the ocean work together to intensify this loop and strengthen the trade winds. As more sunshine hits drier areas, these changes reinforce each other, leading to less clouds in the subtropics, allowing even more sunlight to reach the surface, and producing a positive feedback loop that further magnifies the climate response.

Naturally the climate change alarmists models do not have variations in the Sun’s output driving climate on earth. Doing so would limit their ability to blame human CO2 output. Without being able to blame developed capitalist countries they will not be able to implement global income redistribution. The left-green house of cards collapses along with their funding and ability to expropriate the wealth of others through climate change “abatement” policies.

Accepting climate is driven by something other than people also removes from traders a potential revenue stream comprising part of the value of everything anyone does. It is a component of everything anyone does, because activity takes energy. And with a carbon trading scheme part of the money used to obtain the right to do something will be secured by traders. We can expect the vested interests and their useful idiots to fight tooth an nail to prevent this outcome. They care not how much ordinary people are harmed so long as they get the opportunity to take billions or even trillions of dollars from them. Without human Co2 driven climate change and carbon trading the likes of Goldman Sachs will be poorer, the people of the world as a whole far richer. I know whose side I am on, how about you?