Eric Worrall writes:
Professor Bob Carter, writing in today’s edition of The Australian, a major Aussie daily newspaper, warns that the world is unprepared for imminent global cooling, because of the obsession of policy makers with global warming.
According to Bob Carter;
Heading for ice age
“GRAHAM Lloyd has reported on the Bureau of Meteorology’s capitulation to scientific criticism that it should publish an accounting of the corrections it makes to temperature records (“Bureau warms to transparency over adjusted records”, 12/9). Corrections which, furthermore, act to reinforce the bureau’s dedication to a prognosis of future dangerous global warming, by turning cooling temperature trends into warming ones — a practice also known to occur in the US, Britain and New Zealand.
Meanwhile, we have a report by Sue Neales that the size of our grain harvest remains in doubt following severe frosts in southern NSW killing large areas of early wheat crops and also damaging wheat and canola crops in South Australia and Victoria (“Trifecta of calamities to deplete. crop harvest”, 12/9)
Is it unreasonable to be surprised that none of your writers, much less the government, has noticed that leading solar astrophysicists, such as Habibullo Abdussamatov from Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg, have for years been commenting on the declining activity of the sun?
These scientists are projecting a significant cooling over the next three decades, and perhaps even the occurrence of another little ice age.
Obsessed as they are with a gentle global warming trend that stopped late last century, should the expected solar cooling eventuate, policy makers will rue the day they failed to heed the advice of independent scientists on climate change issues.”
Professor Abdussamatov, cited by Professor Carter in his letter, is head of the Space Research section of the Russian Academy of Science.
In 2006, Professor Abdussamatov issued a press release, warning that the world should prepare for imminent global cooling. Abdussamatov predicted that the global cooling would start in 2012 – 2015, and would likely peak around 2055.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
This predicted global cooling, if it occurs, will mean that polar vortex winters and cold related crop failures, such as the recent frost catastrophe which destroyed a significant fraction of Australia’s wheat crop, in the state of New South Wales, will become a normal part of life, and will most likely become a lot worse.
WUWT readers might recall a shameful incident last year, in which Professor Carter was unceremoniously dumped from his academic post. In my opinion, the removal of Professor Carter was part of an ongoing purge of Australian academics who hold unfashionable views on climate change.
==================================
Source of the graph: Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
As the climate warmed, hundreds of thousands of hectares of Canadian farmland became viable for growing grain crops. Should the climate start to cool, these hectares will no longer be in production. So how many bushels of wheat is represented for each 0.1 deg. C either way? This topic may be a good masters-level project.
It almost beggars belief that a newspaper would print anything from the utterly discredited and mendacious Bob Carter. The accelerating global warming we’re seeing today is caused by an anthropogenic climate forcing far larger than could be offset by any plausible change in solar irradiance.
IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, p. 690
… which of course is why the World Meteorological Organisation say:
icarus62
Global warming has stopped.
Those who predicted global warming will continue do not know why global warming has stopped. That is why there are 52 different published excuses for global warming having stopped. The excuses can be read here.
Richard
That is not correct, as you can see above. Global warming has accelerated, not slowed down.
icarus62
Global warming has stopped in the real world.
What is happening in your dreams does not change that.
Richard
The evidence is unequivocal, as the WMO say: “There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths”. Nor is there any sign of a decline in surface and lower troposphere warming – both GISTEMP and UAH show a warming trend of 0.17C per decade.
icarus62
Please don’t be silly. Global warming has stopped.
Global warming is, only is , always has been, and only has been increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) . Deep ocean temperatures have nothing to do with it.
Global warming has stopped. Live with that.
Richard
Sorry Richard but you are clearly wrong. I refer you to what the WMO say above. They are the experts, after all.
icarus62
Sorry, but I referred you to 52 different “experts” in the literature which each provides a different excuse for global warming having stopped.
My 52 different authorities trumps your solitary one.
And reality trumps all “experts”. Reality says global warming has stopped.
Why do you doubt reality.
Richard
You’re referring to short-term fluctuations in the surface and lower troposphere datasets, which are dominated by unforced natural variability, volcanic eruptions, small variations in the solar cycle etc. These are interesting features of the climate system but I’m talking about the long-term warming of the global climate, driven primarily by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which the real world data shows is continuing unabated, as the WMO point out.
icarus62
Sorry, but I thought you were talking about global warming because that is what you said you were talking about. I have been discussing global warming.
Heat going into the deep oceans cannot provide discernible global warming now or in the future (2nd Law of TD).
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago despite continuing increase to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Richard
As the IPCC say:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 3 Box 3.1 p. 264.
Why would you want to neglect the 93% (oceans) and focus just on the 4% (surface and atmosphere)? If we’re discussing global warming then we have to take account of the whole climate system, which has been warming at an accelerating rate (275 TW for 1993 to 2010, compared to 213 TW for 1971 to 2010).
icarus 62
You must wait for my reply to come out of moderation.
Richard
OK, cheers!
icarus62 says:
Global warming has accelerated, not slowed down.
Accelerated? Maybe on your planet, in whatever alternate universe that is. But here on Planet Earth, even the IPCC is now admitting that global warming has stopped. They call it a “pause” or a “hiatus”. But it means the same thing: global warming has stopped. It has yet to ‘un-pause’.
Whoever told you that global warming is continuing, and even accelerating, is simply lying to you. It is up to you whether you want to believe them, or not.
You say:
I refer you to what the WMO say above. They are the experts, after all.
Personally, I don’t believe liars — even ‘expert’ liars. Why would you?
The claim that the missing heat can be found in the oceans is often claimed, but never demonstrated. Especially considering the fact that we aren’t measuring the temperature of the deep ocean at all. And even the near surface waters aren’t being measured with sufficient frequency and accuracy to say anything reliable about their temperatures.
As to quoting the IPCC, you might as well quote Wikipedia. Neither has any credibililty.
response to icarus62
an ironic note – the tragedy of Icarus-1 was that he flew too close to the sun – that’s known as a “solar effect”
icarus62
Your quotation from the IPCC makes clear why you have so great a misunderstanding.
We are talking about global warming which is an increase to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) . Global warming is not anything else.
You ask me and say
We are discussing global warming so what is happening in the deep oceans is not relevant.
Warming is NOT about energy accumulation (e.g. TW): it is about increase to temperature.
You seem to think global warming is about the global energy budget: IT IS NOT.
Assessment of global warming requires consideration of surface temperatures and nothing else.
GASTA can change without any change to the global energy budget. And the global energy budget can change without any change to GASTA. So there is no reason to “take account of the whole climate system”.
In summation, it is clear that your great ignorance and confusion are why you are having difficulty grasping the fact of global warming having stopped.
Richard
Improved measurements mean that we can now track global warming by the increase in ocean heat content and melting of ice, as well as surface and lower troposphere temperature – hence the WMO statement above that “There is no standstill in global warming”. This is surely something to be welcomed, not an opportunity to quibble about semantics.
icarus62
Global warming has stopped. If you think global warming is a problem then global warming having stopped is surely something to be welcomed.
I refer you to the post of dbstealey which is here. Please say what part of his clear post you are failing to understand.
Richard
The IPCC say that the reduced rate of surface warming in recent years is not reflected in the ocean heat content data and is too short a period to be a robust indicator of long-term climate trends. They highlight this with the following data:
“Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade, and, 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.”
When a 15-year trend changes by a factor of 2 just by moving it ahead one year, any scientifically literate person would conclude that short-term trends are not robust.
The IPCC certainly are not saying there is any “pause” in global warming, only a decline in the rate of surface warming, while the climate system as a whole continues to heat up unabated. This is echoed by the WMO’s statement above. The improved data we have on global warming now should be welcomed, not ignored. The fact that it shows global warming has accelerated should be cause for concern, not complacency.
icarus62
You took time to write that irrelevant twaddle but forgot to say what you have not understood in the post from dbstealey. Please correct the oversight.
Also, people who want to continue laughing – and you – may want to interrupt their amusement at your idiocy and read this
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/
Richard
By now Richard you must know that you cannot debate faith with the faithful. Although it is a bit entertaining from where I’m sitting, you must be exhausted (or enjoying the fun as well?).
BTW way I like your input here at WUWT. Keep up the good work for us semi-lay people out here trying to get a grasp on things.
lawrence Cornell
Thanks for that.
Assuming you don’t share the prudishness which is common among Americans, I commend you to read the item by Pointman which I linked: it really is very funny.
I don’t think icarus62 is a ‘true believer’ because his peadantry does not fit that. His behaviour is more typical of employed trolls. Whatever the reason for his obdurate idiocy, it is important for onlookers to be shown the behaviour and idiocy of global warming advocates such as icarus 62.
Richard
Understanding global warming demands that we consider all the available data, rather than focusing on short-term trends in a metric that only represents around 4% of the energy accumulation in the climate system. Short term trends are not robust, and therefore can be misleading, as explained above. Surface and lower troposphere datasets show warming trends of around 0.17°C per decade. The data we have on OHC and ice melt (the remaining 96% of energy accumulating in the climate system) shows that global warming continues unabated, and indeed has been accelerating in recent years, as the WMO point out.
rgtbatduke.- How do you think the climate issue should be approached? Perhaps the way this web-site is doing it by exploring every topic with a diversity of opinions being generated?
A) Cut funding of climate research — as opposed to weather prediction, which has actual demonstrable value — by roughly 90%.
B) Fire most of the existing NASA GISS staff and start over, taking care to hire people with no evident bias, tasked with revising the GISS temperature series to correctly account for things like the UHI effect and to include explicit error estimates in all products. Probably ditto at Hadley, but that’s up to somebody else.
C) As part of A), defund all of the unsuccessful models and remove them so that they cannot be used to generate an artificially inflated estimate of the future climate trend. Insist (at the grant level!) that all (funded) future climate models must be well-written, well-documented, easily buildable open source and accessible and runnable by anybody.
D) Focus research on observations, not prediction. In particular, satellite observations but also ARGO, improved siting and distribution of real-time weather stations worldwide. Work to systematically fill the observational holes, so that we don’t have to infill them. Routinely audit contributing observational sites.
E) Initialize these observations no earlier than roughly 1970, well into the satellite era. Basically, before satellites there are another 20-30 years (back to roughly WWII) of halfway decent global instrumental data and soundings. Before that, we have no real idea what the global “climate” was at any resolution suitable for splicing into a multi-century record. Avoid (by actively discouraging it!) mixed time-resolution models. Insist that proxy derived data both come with defensible error bars and clear statements of the limitations as far as being “global” or “high resolution in time” are concerned.
F) Absolutely insist that anything asserted to be a “climate model” show predictive skill for an interval no less than thirty years into the future of its initialization before it is taken seriously. This interval should include one or more episodes of non-monotonic behavior — that is, some sort of nontrivial variation that the model correctly predicted — before being taken seriously as well, extending even the 30 year limit as necessary. By “taken seriously” I mean used as weather models are sometimes now used, to guide public policy decisions on the basis of estimated risks and projected savings. Weather models are useful because they work, out to maybe six weeks or so (better for lesser times ahead). Climate models (so far) are useless because they don’t work. Nor is there any particular reason to think that they are going to suddenly start to work, because they are just weather models run far, far past the point where the “weather” they predict bears any resemblance to the real weather we observe. That gap has to close before we should make decisions that ultimately kill people to ameliorate a problem predicted by models that don’t work.
G) Do a serious overhaul of the EPA and the “official” public message, one that openly acknowledges uncertainty, one that balances the good and bad aspects of climate change, one that acknowledges that the climate is always changing, with or without human intervention, and that we probably have a lot less influence on the climate than we think.
Basically, we need to stop pretending that we understand the climate and can predict it, until there is some actual evidence that either one is true, and we need to seriously take the wind out of the self-serving vested interests — especially the big energy companies — that are raking in profits from the panic. Most of what we SHOULD be doing we should be doing with or without climate catastrophe looming. Cheaper energy is always good. Sustainable is cheaper in the long run, as long as one isn’t panicked into investing in cost-ineffective sustainable energy sources prematurely because of a perceived amplified risk of catastrophe.
Amen, but also shut down GISS and NCAR as hopelessly polluted by corrupt anti-scientists. There must be consequences for corruption.
RGTBATDUKE
As you will note, the smart states and governors are getting the message . This is almost next door to you.
Here is a partial quote only from Februray 2014
State considers paying more for winter storm preparation
By Ariel Hart
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Gov. Nathan Deal is prepared to spend in order to prepare for the next winter weather crisis.
For decades Georgia has enjoyed the economies of sunny weather, forgoing expensive winter weather supplies such as intensive road condition forecasting and big snow plow fleets. But after three winter events within four years shut down all of metro Atlanta for days, the tide is shifting.
Which is just as it should be. They’ve had warm weather for a while, and have gambled on it continuing. That’s a risk. There is a cost to losing the bet. They’ve now lost a few times in a row, and suddenly the expense of being reasonably prepared for weather experienced on a century timescale instead of decadal timescale is looking a lot more reasonable.
That’s what EVERYBODY will do if it cools. It is only plunging into sudden severe record cold for decades that one has to worry about. Sudden being the key word. Sudden is bad for everybody. Black Swan events are the plague and reward of those that expect reality to be linear and extrapolable. It isn’t.
Every day a new day, that’s what I always say. “Like” the day before, yet unlike. Sometimes very unlike.
rgb
Many like to talk, but talk is cheap – and very few are doing actual climate forecasting of what is happening and about to happen here in the real world.
Yes, global cooling is coming, that’s a fact, and in my climate forecast global cooling will begin officially in mid-December 2017, and will last 36 years.
It will be an abrupt and deep climate change event that will put an end to the ideological, ignorant and rampant uninformed opinions and dysfunctional views of those who believe that pink elephants can fly (man-made global warming.)
Global cooling will affect everyone – like it or not – and the declining solar activity due to solar cycle #25 will spark off the Sun’s Grand Minimum – which ushers in the end of our most recent interglacial era with the beginning of a new global ice age.
As for those who continue to claim ‘man-made global warming,’ just know that all of your comments and acts have been recorded and will continue to be put into a long list of those who will have to pay for the valuable loss of time and resources to prepare for the era of global cooling.
I have to ask — do you have any quantitative basis for “mid-December, 2017”? Or did you consult a palm-reader?
I personally expect space aliens to land September 24, 2016 and wipe out the human race be early December, so I guess it won’t matter.
rgb
About 10-15 years ago, based on the “solar conveyer”, experts were predicting that solar cycle 25 was going to be exceptionally weak. Of course they were also predicting that cycle 24 was going to be in line with the last few cycles.
I haven’t heard anything about the “solar conveyer” in several years. Are they still predicting a weak cycle 25?
Has the weakness of cycle 24 caused them to adjust their predictions for 25? Up or down?
Seek the Lief (on any thread on Solar Activity). He is the official Oracle of all things Sun.
WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING
People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.
In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.
In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.
When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.
After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:
http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx
The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.
“The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”
The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!
The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.
A temperature graph normally goes here that shows the Earth’s Temperature from -2400 to guesses in +2400.
If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
The things that matter when preparing for weather emergencies, especially cold, are the strategic grain reserve(abandoned).
Fuel stockpiles( also abandoned).
Reserve electrical generation capacity (Also decimated).
Sure looks like Bob Carter is right.
Using the cover of CAGW, these reserves have all been degraded or dismissed as no longer necessary.
But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!
Still, thou art blest, compar’d wi’ me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e’e,
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear!
– Burns
P.S. Good comments by john robertson on September 15, 2014 at 7:24 pm
I don’t know where or how the idea of an extension of 60k years for an interglacial period is being conjured up, but facts are facts, check the record, EVERY ice age begins when the obliquity cycle of earth decreases BELOW 23.5 degrees as it has now in this current period, there are no exceptions over the past one million years. The only case of exceptions in the timing of an ice age cycle is where the obliquity cycle swings to the maximum in which case an interglacial MAY NOT EVEN OCCUR AT ALL, hence the 100,000 year average length of the ice age cycle which gives the impression there is no orbital influence on the ice age cycle when in fact there is one.
Given the obliquity cycle is 41k years, there is no way based on the record than an interglacial can last 50k, 60k or for that matter skip a cooling cycle where the obliquity is proceeding towards it minimum of 22.1 degrees based on the historical record. IF all things are equal, history will repeat itself, it will do so soon and it may being doing so now. Prepare or go extinct like the Dodo bird.
– – – – – – – – –
rgbatduke,
So, I have a question about the limits of models in application to reality.
What can be said categorically, if anything, about whether the nature of the Earth Atmosphere System (EAS) precludes ever being skillfully modeled? I ask this because it seems to me some critics of the IPCC priority focus on models seem to have a premise that the EAS cannot categorically be modeled skillfully. I do not understand how that kind of premise by critics of the IPCC would be valid. Therefore, I think some much reduced funding of EAS modeling efforts could still be reasonable.
John
apologize that my underline html tags did not work in the above rgbatduke quote.. The rgbatduke line I meant to emphasize was “who surely are not all working in any sort of bad faith and who at the very least have some physical basis underlying the models they build, are empirically unable to predict the climate’s time evolution with any particular skill (at least not yet)”
John
It’s a highly multivariate, nonlinear, open, erratically driven, chaotic set of coupled Navier-Stokes equations describing at least three if not four named separations of the two major fluids covering the surface of the Earth, being integrated at a spatiotemporal resolution many tens of orders of magnitude larger than the known relevant dynamical scale of the fluids in question, from almost completely unknown initial conditions, to describe an outcome (the “state of the future climate”) that we cannot even objectively define, let alone measure now.
Oh, and did I mention that the dynamics is set up on a spinning, tipped object in a rather eccentric elliptical orbit around a variable star that is the primary source for the energy that — as it nonlinearly, chaotically distributes — generates both weather and climate? How about the fact that 70% of the surface being covered with a saltwater ocean? How about the fact that the climate is (apparently) highly tied to pure circulation patterns in that ocean to the point where small alterations of them can plunge the Earth into the deep freeze or rapidly thaw it? Or that we cannot predict or fully explain the named chaotic quasiparticle oscillations of the two-fluid system, let alone the near infinity of smaller ones, any one of which could nucleate, grow, and completely alter the pattern of heat distribution for the next thousand years or longer?
rgb
rgbatduke on September 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm
– – – – – – – – –
rgbatduke,
I take your answer as ongoing attempts at modeling the EAS skillfully have incredibly difficult and immense challenges. Where past attempts failed at the very first tiny baby steps of trying to model the EAS.
John
There seems to be some agreement that the 2014/2015 winter will again be cold and possibly even colder in some regions of North America
Joe D’Aleo on his ICECAP blog says “With all the climate factors aligning, next winter in the east and southeast should be even colder than last year. Plan accordingly. Come join us at Weatherbell.com to see the details.” Joe Bastardi on his Saturday summary (9/13) on Weatherbell calls for a cold winter again for US and a significantly cold winter for the US southeastern and mid Atlantic states
The Farmers Almanac is calling for below normal temperatures for about three quarters of Canada . The most frigid temperatures will be found again from the Prairies into the Great Lakes.
I said similar on this track on an earlier post about the possible return of the polar vortex like last year..
Well to be sure of one thing, we adapt or we starve. It’s the Northern Hemisphere with it largest populated regions, that will suffer most. But – the Southern Hemisphere might be able to adapt more likely, so long as we get precipitation that’s what we have always lacked. The problem is that in the last ice age, surface water did not evaporate as much, but the precipitation levels in some parts of Australia were higher or much lower.But with human intervention, we should be able to cope.
However, saying the above, does not expect a full glacial period. This would lower sea levels and obviously precipitation. Well we’ll see, but Bob is right.
RGB,
Your points about the unpredicatability of the climate system are well said and well made. Your solutions articulated at September 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm are reasonable, practical and as about as probable as the current GCMs making an accurate prediction of future climate trends.
As northern hemisphere inhabitants, especially those at the more northern lattitudes, have known for thousands of years, you do not have to prepare for summer but you do have to prepare for winter. Warm is better for everything. You have to get to prolong and extreme hot weather as experienced by the USA in the 1930’s for this to become a problem. Cold is always a problem that takes extra effort to mitigate and prior preparation to alleviate. Prolong cold will have serious food production implications for the current marginal grain producing areas of Canada and Siberia.
A properly functioning political system would prepare for cold because that is the outcome that requires preparation and would serve to protect the community. Only a political system that is determined to increase its own power at the expense of the community would strive to “protect” it from a “warming” world.