I thought I’d leave some of Evelyn Garriss’ newsletters to look at to give people an understandeable model of how climate changes at the decadal level. I’ve cottoned onto this woman because she has this uncanny ability to make predictions and then give investment tips on them and because I got sick of the tendentiousness of more formal scientific publications on these matters.
On page four of the first pdf you will see some talk about the ‘NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION’ which she says has been in a so-called NEGATIVE PHASE since 1995. This is associated with a very strong Gulf-Stream flows with Arctic melting and with hurricanes like Katrina in that part of the world.
She thinks this phase will continue for ‘a decade or more’. I interpret phrasing like that to say between about 9 and 14 years or so.
Looking at the second pdf we see the following:
“Add to this the findings of Dr S K Solanki and his team at Germany’s Max Planck Institute- that the Sun appears to be radiating more energy now than it has in 1,150 years.”
Taking these two factors into account there appears to be very good reasons why the Arctic ice is melting so quickly ALONG WITH the extra warmth that extra industrial CO2 brings.
But go to Prodeo and they are trying to prove global warming is both going to be catastrophic and that we ought to impose heavy costs on people, and most particularly on the use of coal, on the basis of Richard Bransen hoping to make a killing on supplementary fuels. Capitalism is neutral says Kim and that therefore the business genius signing on is a riposte to a sinister make-believe group that these leftists call DENIALISTS.
Actually that follows not at all. The idea that Bransen is and remains a money-making wizard points more to the estimate that liquid fuels are expected to stay very high in price for a very long time. And that once we can turn cellulose and landfill into biofuel then its a good time to start making millions from this process.
This Bransen-the-money-maker THEORY therfore is in no way any argument in favour of the idea that CO2 is leading to a catastrophe.
Until the scientists get their act together the rest of us ought not jump to conclusions. And in the absence of science being able to prove one thesis or another we ought not impose extra costs on eachother and most particularly not the coal industry until we can see how powerful the CO2 effect is WHEN THE OTHER FACTORS TURN AROUND.
How are things going to be when the sun flips back to a cooler part of its cycle? That is presumably what it will do. And I myself saw no real need to worry about the Arctic melting in the first place. If you ask me its time to pop the champagne and congratulate the LapLanders on their good fortune.
But for those who panic about these sorts of things……. ought you not wait until the current NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION has turned around before you foist your evil carbon-taxing plans onto the rest of us?
There may be folks out there that know exactly where the climate is going and could tell the laity about it. But they are going to be crowded out by all those publicly funded science-worker-priests.
If in 15 years time the cycle changes, and the scientists know for sure that the sun is in a cool phase…. And if at around about this time the North Atlantic Oscillation also has flipped around…and suppose after another 10 years of these conditions the earth shows no signs of cooling and the arctic is still melting away……. (This takes us to the 2030’s) then I suspect that I TOO might start campaigning for tax-substitution towards carbon.
Now we have some more information as to why this Russian fellow, mentioned in an earlier one of my threads, (https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/08/27/russian-climatology-how-would-we-time-things/)
thinks that we are in for a period of cooling.
If the sun is giving us more energy then it has in 1,150 years then there’s a pretty good chance that it could stop doing this and make us feel the difference immediately.
“He thinks that cooling will run from about 2012-2015 and reach a peak at around 2055-2066.
He then thinks there will be two centuries of strong warming starting from the 22nd century.”
I pointed out that this makes policy very clear since we are going through a period where it will be costly to expand (or yet even maintain) oil production and we really need to be accessing as much coal, nuclear and other energies as we can. But it is coal particularly that we can expand the most quickly.
And supposing if the Russian fellow were right then there would be no contradiction between doing this and where things were destined to go in the climate absent human influence.
Here are three Evelyn Garriss pdf’s.
THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.
Are the science workers at realclimate.com…. Here they are attempting to play down the role of the changing strength of radiation coming from the Sun. If they were solar experts disputing the findings of the Proffessor at the Max Plank institute that would be one thing. But the dumb bastards are trying to say that the difference in solar energy DOESN’T MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
Here they use the ARGUMENT FROM DOPEY SMUGNESS to full effect.
“Solar forcing of climate is a subject that gets far more attention than any new observations or improved understanding would warrant.”
No Gary and Michael you dumb bastards. Its getting almost no attention at all. And yes it is very important and the suns temperature impacts on the warmth of the air very quickly…… It takes EIGHT MINUTES.
So get it right you fools.