By Allan M. R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., August 2019
CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING IS A FALSE CRISIS – THE NEXT GREAT EXTINCTION WILL BE GLOBAL COOLING
Forget all those falsehoods about scary global warming, deceptions contrived by wolves to stampede the sheep. The next great extinction event will not be global warming, it will be global cooling. Future extinction events are preponderantly cold: a glacial period, medium-size asteroid strike or supervolcano. Humanity barely survived the last glacial period that ended only 11,500 years ago, the blink-of–an-eye in geologic time.
Cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates. Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity, and currently-observed moderate global warming increases life spans.
“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times As Many People As Hot Weather”
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
However, Excess Winter Deaths are not the worst threats to humanity. The glacial cycle averages about 100,000 years, consisting of about 90,000 years of the glacial period, when mile-thick continental glaciers blanketed much of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres including Canada, Russia, Northern Europe and Northern USA, and about 10,000 years of interglacial, the warm period of the present. Earth is now 11,500 years into the current warm interglacial, and our planet may re-enter the glacial period at any time.
“Glacial-Interglacial Cycles”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles
The re-entry into the glacial period will be a major extinction event for humanity, possibly the end of modern civilization. Not only will our land surface be devastated by glaciers, but CO2 concentrations will drop so low that C3 crop photosynthesis, the source of almost all our foods, will be barely sustainable.
GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS HAVE NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY – NOBODY SHOULD BELIEVE THEIR FALSEHOODS
One’s predictive track record is probably the best objective measure of scientific competence. The IPCC and its acolytes have been consistently wrong in their predictions of catastrophic global warming. Their climate computer models run too hot, and observed global warming has actually been moderate and beneficial. Global warming alarmists have proven negative scientific credibility – nobody should believe their wild exaggerations.
In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes significantly improved crop yields due to enhanced photosynthesis, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.
In 2002 we confidently published the following statements, which are still demonstrably correct:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
“Debate on the Kyoto Accord”
Published by APEGA in the PEGG, and in The Globe and Mail, La Presse, and professional journals.
By Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Increased atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion and/or other causes, will have little impact on the onset of future glaciation. Climate is not highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Paradoxically, CO2 concentrations are not alarmingly high; in fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are alarmingly low – too low for the long-term survival of terrestrial life. Photosynthesis of C3 food crops ceases at 150ppm – CO2 starvation.
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
“(Plant) Food for Thought”
By Allan MacRae, December 18, 2014 and January 31, 2009
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-70691
In the near term, there is a significant probability of moderate global cooling. Similar global cooling happened from about 1940 to 1977, even as fossil fuel consumption accelerated rapidly at the onset of WW2. Global warming did not occur as CO2 increased. In fact, Earth cooled significantly for over 30 years – strong evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 does not cause catastrophic global warming.
Even moderate global cooling is harmful to humanity and the environment. We predicted the return of moderate global cooling in an article published September 1, 2002 in the Calgary Herald, as follows:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Our 2002 global cooling prediction is still probable. In the past five years, I’ve stated that moderate cooling will probably start closer to 2020, driven by the low activity of Solar Cycle 24. Humanity suffered during past cold periods that coincided with solar lows, such as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.
Last year there was a very late, cold spring and crops were planted one-month late in the American Midwest, but warm summer weather resulted in a good grain crop. This year, cold wet weather in the Midwest reportedly prevented about 30% of the USA corn crop from being planted – the ground was too wet for farm equipment. Were the last two years of late planting in the North American grain belt early signs of global cooling? Hope not.
I predicted in 2013 that winter deaths would increase in the UK, where energy costs are much higher than in North America. Sadly, this has proved correct. Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales in the winter of 2017-2018 totaled over 50,000 souls, the highest since 1976, as compared to an annual average of about 100,000 in the USA. The population of England and Wales is about one-sixth that of the USA, so the United Kingdom had an Excess Winter Death Rate three times the USA average – a terrible, preventable tragedy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954
If the Sun does primarily drive temperature, as I believe, then foolish politicians have brewed the perfect storm. They have adopted dysfunctional climate-and-energy policies to “fight global warming” and have crippled energy systems with intermittent, expensive “green energy” schemes that destabilize the electric grid, at a time when catastrophic global warming is not happening and moderate global cooling may be imminent.
GREEN ENERGY IS NOT GREEN; IT IS DESTRUCTIVE AND PRODUCES LITTLE USEFUL (DISPATCHABLE) ENERGY
Despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, “green energy” has increased from 1% in 2008 to only 4% of global primary energy in 2018. Fossil fuels provide fully 85% of global primary energy, essentially unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in decades to come. The remaining 11% is hydro and nuclear.
“Statistical Review of World Energy”
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow as radical green activists insist, and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in a few months from starvation and exposure.
“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine. Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power. There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-scale wind and solar power generation.
“Wind Report 2005” – note Figures 6 & 7 on intermittency.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
Vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.
CONCLUSION
This paper discusses real threats, specifically global cooling, including imminent moderate global cooling and later re-entry into another glacial period, in order to shift the climate discussion from popular scary-fantasies of runaway global warming, to cold events that actually do threaten the future of humanity and the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Allan McRae
Thanks for insulting me, I don’t bother about that. Over 45 years of experience in communicating with people have teached me that the less somebody will understand simple matters, the more s/he will be inclined to insult.
It was so simple to understand that it makes no sense to reduce the world to a few million km² and to say ‘I blame global warming!’ That is useless polemics. The examples I have shown in my reply speak for themselves.
*
Thank you also for the excellent paper. Compared with your superficial polemics about global cooling, this paper by Garnett and Khandekar is a monument of precision, conciseness, and sobriety. I loved it.
Now back to your time series! I had a big laugh as I read in your reply:
Individual weather stations, as ably demonstrated by Anthony Watts and colleagues, can be severely flawed.
Good grief! From what, do you think, did their data come from? From some magic box?
On page 257 of their paper, you see in Table 1 the source of their temperature data.
The time series provided by Garnett of course is, like that generated out of the GHCN daily dataset (over 40,000 temperature stations worldwide), an average of the data measured by hundreds of stations located in the Canadian Prairies (from 1 in 1872 up to 734 in 2002, and down to 330 in 2019).
Thus you might suspect Garnett’s data to be flawed as well. Why not?
But I have shown here at WUWT that the difference between a handful of pristine CONUS stations and the entire GHCN daily station set for CONUS is simply negligible.
Here is a comparison of Garnett’s data with what I generated:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_pc7rduyatlawOxDzb0XnZv9BAnK3-Op/view
As you can see, both time series are nearly identical.
But they are useless, as they are the result of a manifold cherry-picking:
– restricting the data to one month
– restricting the period to 40 years instead of 140 available
and above all
– confounding, intentionally or not, a few millions of km² with Earth’s surface.
One could add, for the last 40 years, the lack of an analysis comparing surface and the lower troposphere above it, like e.g. this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18qfZRGkstnH7mwIAs6jmkFVX7T1MNeFl/view
*
In my humble opinion, Mr McRae, there might very well be a Global Cooling in the future. But its reason will considerably differ from what you try to propagate: it will rather be a consequence of excessive warming, regardless wether man-made or not.
Bindi wrote:
“In my humble opinion, Mr McRae, there might very well be a Global Cooling in the future. But its reason will considerably differ from what you try to propagate: it will rather be a consequence of excessive warming, regardless wether man-made or not.”
So you say Bindi that excessive warming will cause cooling. Right-O!
Let’s leave it there and agree to disagree.