Yesterday I had the honor of co-presenting a seminar with Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, when he visited Chico State University. He had relatives to visit in town but had asked to be able to make a rebuttal presentation is response to Dr. Ben Santer’s presentation a couple of weeks ago which I had attended and written about here.
Dr. James Pushnik, moderator for the Santer event at CSUC, graciously allowed Dr. Christy and myself to make a rebuttal presentation yesterday and I thank him sincerely for the opportunity. Dr. Christy ended his essay with the title of this post saying “Don’t demonize energy, because without energy, life is brutal and short”. Dr. Christy writes this from his firsthand experiences in Africa, where he watched the native people just trying to survive and where wood carried for miles was the energy source for their society. I thought those were good words to consider, especially since we have activist maniacs like weepy Bill McKibben out to demonize energy on a daily basis. McKibben and his followers, not possessing the intelligence to fully understand what they are doing, think “they won“.
Bottom line: that tar sands oil is going to be burned somewhere, in other countries willing to buy it. Stopping a pipeline has no effect on Canada’s export of the oil, only on American jobs, but McKibben and his 350.org is cluelessly ecstatic over this. I like how he’s brainwashed these poor souls into thinking they have to cut back.
Along the same lines and coincidentally about the same time as all this was happening, I was asked by WUWT reader Paul Homewood if I’d be interested in carrying this essay from his blog “Not a lot of people know that” about how difficult life was during the time of the little ice age.
Today, I’m thankful for two things: 1) Our freedom, secured by veterans we honor today and 2) Our wonderful energy infrastructure, without which, I couldn’t bring you this essay and Bill McKibben would be chopping wood in Vermont just to keep warm.
Here’s Paul’s essay on life in the Little Ice Age in England:
In Part I we started to review the book “The Little Ice Age” by Brian Fagan, a Professor of Archaeology. If you have missed it, you can catch up with Part I here.
Everything that follows is based on the book.
==============================================================
Storms and Floods
Drawing by Hans Moser in 1570 of Scheldt flood
It was not only the cold that was a problem during the Little Ice Age.Throughout Europe, the years 1560-1600 were cooler and stormier, with late wine harvests and considerably stronger winds than those of the 20th Century. Storm activity increased by 85% in the second half of the 16th Century and the incidence of severe storms rose by 400%.
Perhaps the most infamous of these storms was the All Saints Flood in November 1570, which worked its way northeast up the North Sea.The storm brought enormous sea surges ashore in the Low Countries, flooding most of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Dordrecht and other cities and drowning at least 100,000 people. In the River Ems further north in Germany, sea levels rose an incredible four and a half meters above normal.
In 1607 another storm caused even greater floods in the Bristol Channel with flood waters rising 8 meters above sea level miles inland.
Later in the 17th Century, great storms blew millions of tonnes of formerly stable dunes across the Brecklands of Norfolk and Suffolk, burying valuable farm land under meters of sand. This area has never recovered and is heathland. A similar event occurred in Scotland in 1694. The 1400 hectare Culbin Estate had been a prosperous farm complex next to the Moray Firth until it was hit by another huge storm which blew so much sand over it that the farm buildings themselves disappeared. A rich estate had become a desert overnight and the owner, the local Laird, died pauper three years later.
The Great Storm of 1703 is recognized as the most powerful storm ever recorded in England and caused immense damage there as well as across the North Sea in Holland and Denmark.
Cold, Snow and Ice
Between 1680 and 1730, the coldest cycle of the Little Ice Age, temperatures plummeted and the growing season in England was about five weeks shorter than now. The winter of 1683/4 was so cold that the ground froze to a depth of more than a meter in parts of south west England and belts of ice appeared off the Channel coast of England and northern France. The ice lay up to 30 miles offshore along the Dutch coast and many harbours were so choked with ice that shipping halted throughout the North Sea.
Another exceptional winter was that of 1708/9. Deep snow fell in England and lasted for weeks while further East people walked from Denmark to Sweden on the ice as shipping was again halted in the North Sea. Hard frosts killed thousands of trees in France, where Provence lost most of its orange trees and vineyards were abandoned in northern France, not to be recultivated until the 20th Century. In 1716 the Thames froze so deep that a spring tide raised the ice fair on the river by 4 meters! The summer of 1725 in London was the coldest in the known temperature record and described as “more like winter than summer”.
After a warm interlude after 1730, when eight winters were as mild as the 20th Century, the cold returned. The temperature of the early 1740’s was the lowest in the Central England Temperature record for the entire period from 1659. Even in France thousands died of the cold and when the thaw came “great floods did prodigious mischief”.
Although temperatures started to gradually increase in the mid 19th Century, another cold snap in 1879 brought weather that rivalled the 1690’s. After a below freezing winter, England experienced a cold spring and one of the wettest and coldest summers on record. In some parts of East Anglia, the harvest was still being brought in after Christmas. The late 1870’s were equally cold in China and India , where up to 18 million died from famines caused by cold, drought and monsoon failure.
The cold snap persisted into the 1880’s and 1890’s when large ice floes formed on the Thames.
Fishing and Sea Conditions
During the 17th Century conditions around Iceland became exceptionally severe. Sea ice often blocked the Denmark Strait throughout the summer. In 1695, ice surrounded the entire coast of Iceland for much of the year, halting all ship traffic. The inshore cod fishery failed completely, partly because the fish may have moved offshore into slightly warmer water. On several occasions between 1695 and 1728, inhabitants of the Orkney Islands were startled to see an Inuit in his kayak paddling off their coasts. These solitary hunters must have spent weeks marooned on large ice floes. As late as 1756, sea ice surrounded much of Iceland for as many as thirty weeks a year.
The cod fishery off the Faeroe Islands failed completely as the sea surface temperature became 5C cooler than today, while enormous herring shoals deserted Norwegian waters for warmer seas further south.
Famine
As climatic conditions deteriorated, a lethal mix of misfortunes descended on a growing European population. Crops failed and cattle perished by diseases caused by abnormal weather. Famine followed famine bringing epidemics in their train, bread riots and general disorder. Witchcraft accusations soared, as people accused their neighbours of fabricating bad weather.
Farming was just as difficult in the fledgling European colonies of North America where there were several severe drought cycles between 1560 and 1612 along the Carolina and Virginia coasts.
From 1687 to 1692, cold winters and cool summers led to a series of bad harvests. Alpine villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells, whilst in France, wine harvests were delayed till as late as November. Widespread blight damaged many crops, bringing one of the worst famines in Europe since 1315. Finland lost perhaps as much as a third of its population to famine and disease in 1696-7.
Things did not improve. 1739 brought more problems, ruining grain and wine harvests over much of western Europe, while winter grain yields were well down because the ground was too hard to plough for weeks.
By 1815, Europe was struggling with yet another cold spell, when the Tambora eruption made matters a whole lot worse. The following year was described as “ The year without a summer”. In France the grain harvest was half its normal level and southern Germany suffered a complete harvest failure. In Switzerland grain and potato prices tripled, and 30000 were breadless, without work and resorted to eating “sorrel,moss and cats”.
Inevitably such suffering brought with it social unrest, pillaging, rioting and criminal violence. The famine encouraged many to emigrate to America, although in Saint John’s, Newfoundland, 900 were sent back to Europe because there was so little food in town.
The crisis of 1816/7 was the last truly extensive food dearth in the Western world and its effects ranged from the Ottoman Empire, to parts of North Africa, large areas of Switzerland and Italy, western Europe and even New England and Canada. Other parts of the world were also badly affected such as China. Death tolls are hard to calculate but 65000 may have perished in Ireland, while in Switzerland the death rate could have doubled. The death toll would have been much worse in England and France but for the availability of and ability to efficiently distribute reserve stocks of food.
For anyone who wishes to explore this period further, Brian Fagan’s book is available here.
Who is demonizing energy? The need for it is obvious to all and denied by no one.
The questions surround one particular type of energy — that derived from the burning of fossil fuels.
We are in a jam, there’s no doubt about it. We are dependent on the burning of fossil fuels, and the transition to new sources of energy is going to be difficult.
But we have to make the transition, for two reasons: 1) There’s only so much fossil fuel. The question is when, not whether, we will run out of it, and 2) The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate is massive and redundant, the efforts of web sites like this to deny this fact notwithstanding.
We can talk about Little Ice Ages and Medieval Warm periods all we want — these phases of climate history confirm only what no one denies: the climate is variable. It is variable because it is sensitive to a variety of forcings. Dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, year after year, is a powerful forcing, whose current effects are what was predicted: warmer nights; rising temperatures, especially at high northern latitudes; rising temperatures in the troposphere and lowering temperatures in the stratosphere; an increase in the total amount of energy released by tropical storms, and so on.
Alternative explanations have a desperate “throw anything you can at them” quality: it’s not CO2, it’s ocean currents, or cosmic rays, or the chaotic nature of weather, or who knows what. Tune in next week: there will be another “great discovery” that “puts the final nail in the coffin of the AGW theory”.
Indeed.
From the enviro-loon himself:
“Imagine we live on a planet. Not our cozy, taken-for-granted earth, but a planet, a real one, with darkpoles and belching volcanoes and a heaving, corrosive sea, raked by winds, strafed by storms, scorched by heat. An inhospitable place. It’s a different place. A different planet. It needs a new name: EAARTH”
If ever one needs a reminder of just how dangerously unhinged those on the environmental left are, Bill Mckibben is a good example. The scary thing is that we do live in a changed world; a world where seriously delusional and mentally unstable people like him are actually listened to instead of medicated or even straitjacketed. The idea alone that 350 ppm is the “upper limit safe” level for C02 is bizarrely insane, yet there are plenty who go along with it. By contrast, he and his foam-at-the-mouth ilk make the folks with the UNIPCC look reasonable, perhaps even dangerously so.
Yes, humanity has indeed plunged itself into a strange, new world in the past few decades. It’s an upside-down world, where a fiction has become truth, and where an entirely beneficial gas has become a pariah, and by extension, mankind himself by virtue of producing a small percentage of it. It’s a world where an ideology has triumphed over science, and where those struggling to bring science back are reviled and attacked viciously. Although a temporary world it probably should have a name; I’m calling it “Water (melon) World” for now.
James Sexton: “I do wish our closest friends all the best, but we don’t need your wood. We’ve plenty ourselves.”
You need to do a lot more research before you plunge into this one, James. It all has to do with US complaints over stumpage rates. Fact is that Canadian timber is a lot cheaper to supply into the US that your domestic production, so there have been repeated attempts to block it. You also need to understand that huge amounts of US timberland have been taken out of the industry over the last 30 years thanks to things like owls and other wildlife. It doesn’t matter that the US has lost every single trade dispute over softwood lumber before the WTO; thanks to a congressional lobby, the Commerce Department just starts another round of protectionism about every five years. What this demonstrates is that where powerful local political interests are involved, the US is pretty much faithless as a trade partner. This was shown again about six years ago with the tariffs against Canadian steel.
Dave Springer: “With friends like you who needs enemies?”
I’m so glad you agree with Obama’s strategy of sitting in the pockets of the Saudis and Hugo Chavez. In case you hadn’t noticed, Canada’s FIRST choice was to expand shipping capacity to Texas, not to the Pacific. YOU lot turned it down, not us.
Next time, think before you open your yap.
Message: Cold Still Kills!
1.7 million livestock die in Mongolia freeze
“Temps as low as minus 58 F raise fears that toll could reach 4 million ” AP 2/2/2010
Natural temperature variations causing extreme cold waves or another “Little Ice Age” are far more deadly than the projected mild anthropogenic warming. Using abundant fossil fuels now keep away tens of millions of deaths from cold.
Jesse Fell says:
November 12, 2011 at 4:31 am
The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate is massive and redundant, the efforts of web sites like this to deny this fact notwithstanding.
Actually no, the “evidence” linking manmade C02 to climate change is very weak, and is dependent on C02-based models. I guess you could call making the same false claims over and over “redundant”. It’s really more to do with the fact that the more times people hear a lie, the more likely they are to believe it.
You are certainly not the first climate troll to come in with the claim of “massive evidence” of manmade climate change. Yet, inevitably, when asked to produce said “evidence”, none is ever given.
Oh, and nice attempt at reversing the null hypothesis, aka “pulling a Trenberth”.
tokyoboy,
There are many. The simplest way for you to get as many as possible is to use some smart search terms in google scholar.
Eg,
little ice age
or
little ice age global
and
medieval warm period
or
medieval climate anomaly
There is also a good site for paper lists on topics under the general heading of climate change. Eg,
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/ (‘modern’ = last 600 to 2000 years)
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/papers-on-the-mwp-as-global-event/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/papers-on-stalagmite-reconstructions/
Happy hunting!
Hmmm!
Oil=energy=warmth
Oil=chemicals=fertiliser
But
How does Oil/Gas/Coal = flood prevention/wind calming/drought prevention?
How does fossil fuel warm/cool millions of acres?
How does fossil fuel stop crops being flattened by storms (and storm deaths)?
How does fossil fuel allow solar radiation through volcanic dust?
Perhaps fossil fuel helps out because it allows those with it to get in their war vehicles and travel south to steal the natives crops?
Is it better being warm and starved and dead, or cold and starved and dead
some really good weather related stuff here:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
p.s.I do not kow of any scientist in his right mind (and not joking) who would recommend a back to the cave approach to energy (for a start there are not enough caves). Even Hansen sees nuclear (in particular fast breeder reactors) as perhaps the only option.
RE: Jesse Fell: (November 12, 2011 at 4:31 am)
“… But we have to make the transition, for two reasons: 1) There’s only so much fossil fuel. The question is when, not whether, we will run out of it, …”
True…
“… 2) The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate is massive and redundant, the efforts of web sites like this to deny this fact notwithstanding.”
False. To date, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased from the nominal pre-industrial level of 280 PPM to a little over 396 PPM–a square root of two ratio. As the CO2 greenhouse effect applies only over a narrow band of wavelengths around 15 microns, the effect of each new cohort of added CO2 in the atmosphere is largely masked by that already present. According to the MODTRAN web utility provided by the University of Chicago, one must double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to get a one degree C *raw* increase in temperature. So far, the CO2 level has only gone up enough for a half-degree C increase.
Some have blamed all the temperature rise in the last century on the CO2 increase as a result of regenerative feedback. Others have said this feedback should be degenerative from increasing clouds that reflect and diffuse solar radiation. For the past ten years average Earth temperatures have leveled out while the CO2 level continues to increase.
Based on estimates of the remaining petroleum and coal, I suspect that man lacks the resources to inject truly dangerous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Below is an image that shows the minimal difference in energy leaving the earth 20 km up when the CO2 concentration is doubled from 300 PPM to 600 PPM. Note that the green 300 PPM curve can only be seen rising above the blue 600 PPM CO2 curve in a few places on the fringes of the general CO2 hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Dave Springer said:
November 11, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Let me get this straight. Canada would sell resources critical to the defense of the North American continent to Red China…
————————————————————-
I think you have it backwards. McKibben seeks to deny the US a resource critical to the defense of North America and Obama is afraid to protect the US economic and defense interests in this matter during an election year, because it will cost him environmental votes.
It isn’t Canada that is selling you out.
Jesse Fell says:
November 12, 2011 at 4:31 am
“The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate is massive and redundant”
You will be able to cite some then…..
By ‘some’ I mean one piece of said evidence. It would get ALL our attention.
What I found interesting was the powerful storms.
The power of a storm is directly proportional to the temperature difference not the temperature.
Anyone that has sat in a sailboat on the ocean when it was 100 ° F going nowhere realizes that winds are caused by temperature difference not the temperature. I have sailed out into the Atlantic and sat there all day, but since it was sunny I know there would be a going home wind when the sun began to set and the land cooled faster than the water.
Anyone who has stood on a windy street corner when it was -10 ° realizes that the power of a storm is directly proportional to the temperature difference not the temperature.
Those who predict stronger storms because of global warming are ignorant about storms and history. CO2 is supposed to cause a blanketing effect which should even temperatures out and reduce the power of storms but that doesn’t sell the mousemilk.
Jesse Fell says:
November 12, 2011 at 4:31 am
We are dependent on the burning of fossil fuels, and the transition to new sources of energy is going to be difficult.
Not if the market is allowed to deal with the problem. The US has coal and gas supplies for 200 years of use. Does anyone seriously suggest that no new discoveries will be made in that time?
The problem is FEAR. People are afraid of CO2 because it has been demonized. They believe it will kill them. This is allowing other people to take their money to save them. Organized religion has used this approach for years to fleece money from people to “save” them. The environmental movement is the new organized religion. Saving people one dollar at a time.
Jesse Fell, have you accounted for urban heat island effect in the warmer night measurements? It is usually not subtracted out. UHIE is adjusted for using average temperatures (average of high and low temps) That adjustment would have to be applied to nighttime temperatures. Have you sorted out how much high latitude warming is from feedback and how much from CO2 itself? Have you looked at how much stratospheric cooling is due to solar factors, specifically low ultraviolet in the recent solar minimum? Those are a lot more significant that the GHG effect.
Do not read desperation into alternative explanations. Those require a holistic evaluation, ocean/atmosphere cycles, solar spectrum, GCMs, weather, etc have all had some effect on weather and in some cases tropospheric temperature. Each one alone does not have the strength to cause a long term tropospheric temperature rise (or fall) and some don’t affect tropospheric temperature at all, but do affect weather which controls temperature through feedback. My conclusion is CO2 has a small long term effect, but the hypothesized water vapor feedback is not controlled by CO2 but by the weather which is primarily controlled by natural factors. When it comes to weather, CO2 is not a “powerful forcing”, it is negligible.
tokyoboy says:
November 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Anyone in the know could you teach me how many research papers have so far discussed positively on the existence of LIA?
And in addition, on the existence of MWP?
Thanks in advance.
______________________
You might check out Pop techs list of skeptic papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I see. So it is just the Canadians we should regard as poor friends then…?
Is there something going on in your life? From someone who enjoys your past posts, you seem to be bitter and unstable lately? Hope whatever it is, it will be soon resolved, and you will be back to your old astute personality soon. GK
jack morrow says:
November 11, 2011 at 3:12 pm
It can Happen again.
Unfortunately, it will happen again. But it will be several orders of magnitude worse. What would be the effect of the northern hemisphere grow line dropping to say 50N? Billions starving – it will make the Irish potato famine look like missing breakfast. Add to that the insistence on destruction of reliable high volume nuclear power generation in favor of ‘green’ energy generation that will not cope in extreme weather so the power will fail. Over vast areas of the northern hemisphere…
Cold – Dark – Starving
I am relatively lucky – I live south of 30N; I know how to hunt, what plants to eat, how to grow plants; how to cook what I have hunted and grown; and, how to store what I cannot eat immediately.
How many of the urban dwellers today know any of these things?
Yet the people in towns are the majority.
And well paid climate ‘scientists’ spread scare stories about +2DegC?
Dave Springer;
Let me get this straight. Canada would sell resources critical to the defense of the North American continent to Red China if the U.S. can’t take it off your hands fast enough.
With friends like you who needs enemies?>>>
Let me get this straight. Its OK for the U.S. to borrow trillions of dollars from Red China, use them to buy oil from middle east sheiks, while at the same time refusing to buy oil from Canada and also trying to prevent us from selling it to someone else…
With friends like you, who needs enemies?
BTW super intellect Springer, if there’s no means to get the oil from the Canadian tar sands to the American war machine in a timely fashion, how exactly would it be used in the event that defense of the North American continent was required? Does the United States have some magic transport mechanism where they can just snap their fingers and POOF! a pipeline appears by magic straight to a refinery that instantly turns it into fuel?
Michael Palmer says:
November 11, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Devastating floods have occurred along the North Sea coast throughout recorded history, with thousands or tens of thousands dead about once or twice a century. There is no notable correlation with MWP or LIA that I’m aware of.
Along the German North Sea cost, the highest flood levels ever recorded occurred in 1976 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmflut — page in German, but see table at bottom of page). Number of people killed: 0 (the storm killed several dozen people in-land but none due to flooding). The coastline fortifications that run continuously from the Netherlands to Denmark are excellent – a great example of proper adaptation to the variations of climate, so much so that big floods hardly make the news nowadays. These Euro-socialists know what they are doing – at least occasionally. If the US government were half as well-run as these countries, Katrina would have caused a lot less damage.
Perhaps you should learn a little about the US Constitution. The defense of the Louisiana coastline and the levees around New Orleans (and for that matter all the evacuation plans) were the responsibility of the State of Louisiana and not of the Federal Government.
Another few points about Katrina – the storm front caused floods up to 30 miles inland along a line from New Orleans to the Florida Panhandle. In UK terms that is further than from Plymouth to Folkestone with floods inland as far North as Launceston, Gatwick and on to Canterbury. Major towns like Biloxi Mississippi larger than Eastbourne were almost completely razed by the storm surge. Just a 2 or 3 inches of rain in a day and we see the Euro-socialist paradises all flooding – Katrina dropped 10 – 15 inches of rain at the rate of an inch an hour or more. You are displaying your ignorance if you think that a flood caused by a southbound polar low in the North Sea at a high tide bears any resemblance to a hurricane like Katrina.
Spector,
The usual estimate of the effect of doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is that it would raise the average surface temperature of the Earth by 2.1C. That estimate does not take into account the various feedback effects of such a doubling.
The most significant feedback effect would be an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Warmer air holds more water vapor, and water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. More water vapor, then, means rising temperatures. This creates the possibility of a run-away feedback cycle of warming.
Of course, we cannot predict when such a run-away cycle would begin, how fast it would raise temperatures, or how rising temperatures would affect climate. Most entries to this site are reassured by the fact of uncertainty — it might not be all the bad; probably won’t be.
But uncertainty cuts both ways: things might turn out worse than anticipated. The Earth’s glaciers — 90 percent of them — are not only shrinking, but shrinking more quickly than predicted. The glaciers and ice cover in the high northern latitudes are melting more quickly than predicted. And, according to Kerry Emmanuel of MIT, the amount of energy released by tropical storms each year has increased by roughly 60% since the 1970s; the record-breaking year for tropical storms that gave us Katrina was also a year of record-breaking surface sea temperatures; this increase is more than some models predicted.
An aside: “Warmists” are thought to be “liberal”, but I would argue that in this matter, they are the true conservatives. They want the human race to be more cautious in its use of the Earth’s resources. They remind us that the Earth is the only planet that we have to live on. The solar system can never be the stage for a mad-hatter’s tea party, at which we foul one planet and move on to a clean one.
There is a study here that suggests much greater flood activity during the LIA.
The last thousand years of the record revealed “a period of little flood activity around the Medieval period (AD 1000-1400),” which was followed by a period of extensive flood activity that was associated with the “post-Medieval climate deterioration characterized by lower air temperature, thicker and more long-lasting snow cover, and more frequent storms associated with the ‘Little Ice Age’.” This particular study suggests that the post-Little Ice Age warming the earth has experienced for the past century or two—and which could well continue for some time to come—should be leading this portion of the planet into a period of less-extensive floods.
http://theclimatetruth.org/science/observations-extreme-weather/floods/
Jay Davis asserts that no one has come up with an alternative to fossil fuel based production of energy. You are wrong Jay, and I would suggest you read Jeremy Rifkin’s latest book (try Amazon) and notice what is happening in Europe and cities like Rome and San Antonio. We are hitting the wall with regards to the availability of cheap oil and the necessity of switching to newer forms of energy production are apparent, even obvious. Rifkin describes this transformation as the Third Industrial Revolution. The decision to change will either result from freely made choices, or, if we delay too long, we will find our choices diminishing and becoming prohibitively expensive. (read the Stern report for an elaboration of this economic circumstance)
I thought the bit about the ground freezing to a metre deep was interesting.
I wonder how vulnerable UK and USA mains water pipes are in that case, should we see some prolonged cold spells as this minimum deepens.
Landscheidt and Abdussamatov were / are both of the opinion that it will match the Maunder minimum.
Also, co2 acolytes never seem to do full accounting, the US will get it’s oil either by pipeline or by railway and ship. I would have thought that if one had concerns about co2 then a pipeline would produce far less co2 in the energy needed to power the pumps, than a fleet of supertankers, which use a considerable amount of “dirty” oil.
Richard of NZ said:
November 12, 2011 at 1:35 am
Mark and two Cats saids:
November 11, 2011 at 11:28 pm
The US should invade Canada, eh.
—————————————————
It might be a case of third time lucky. The US does not have a good record in this regard.
————————————————
Outsource it to the Chinese 😉
Jesse Fell;
The usual estimate of the effect of doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is that it would raise the average surface temperature of the Earth by 2.1C. That estimate does not take into account the various feedback effects of such a doubling.>>>
BS. IPCC AR4 and even raging warmist researchers since then estimate the direct effects at about 1 degree. They then estimate positive feedbacks in addition to that.
Jesse Fell;
More water vapor, then, means rising temperatures. This creates the possibility of a run-away feedback cycle of warming.>>>
BS. Even the IPCC zealots have abandoned the notion because it is physically impossible, and the geological record is clear that the very conditions that in theory (flawed theory) would have resulted in this condition have existed many times in the past without the supposed “tipping point” appearing.
Jesse Fell;
according to Kerry Emmanuel of MIT, the amount of energy released by tropical storms each year has increased by roughly 60% since the 1970s; >>>
BS. You’ll find multiple articles on this site showing that the records kept by major storm intensity databases quite clearly show that cyclone intensity and total cyclone energy have been decreasing for decades.
Jesse Fell;
this increase is more than some models predicted.>>>
BS. Which models? Of the 23 models cited by the IPCC, which one predicted less warming than we’ve seen? Which one predicted that we would see no significant warming from 1995 to 2010?
Jesse Fell;
They want the human race to be more cautious in its use of the Earth’s resources.>>>
BS. Be they liberal or conservative, the “medicine” suggested by the raging warmists would kill people by the billions. They live in a fantasy world where everything that the human race has done to improve our lives on this planet is evil, and the cure is to inflict upon the human race the greatest evil ever perpetrated for our own “good”.
If they were sincerely interested in what was good for the human race, they wouldn’t, like you have in your comment above, make up their own facts and make entirely misleading arguments in support of their position.
Please provide evidence that CO2 induced water vapor has caused run-away warming on this planet. Ever.
All alternative sources are prohibitively expensive NOW. Are you saying windmills will be even more expensive in the future?? Or is it solar panels which will become even more prohibitively expensive in the future? Or perhaps it is the actions of fear mongering warmist, who will be making all things prohibitively expensive?? GK