With more recent research suggesting a link between solar and climate I’m left with a strange dilemma.
For years, I’ve had the luxury of knowing that global warming is not going to happen**. So, I’ve used as one of the main weapons against the wind-industry/academic-grant driven scam the narrative of a bunch of “end of world” nutters trying to scare the pants off the public.
However, the problem I have, is that whereas I can be certain that global warming is not going to happen, I (now) know that sooner or later, we – or our descendants – will experience relatively quick and catastrophic cooling and to be frank, I’ve very little idea what will cause it.
What I do know, is that every single time you hear the phrase “catastrophic global warming” – whilst it will never warm catastrophically, the climate can and has changed catastrophically – using the same feedback mechanism – but always (in an inter-glacial like now) getting cooler rather than hotter.
So, why should we worry about cooling when the world is “getting hotter”
First off the world is not getting hotter. To put it very simply & crudely the only figures showing warming are those that have been deliberately tampered with by people I have no respect for. Second, there are two good reasons to believe that we are in for a few decades of cooling:
- The Atlantic Multi-decadel Oscillation which was responsible in large part for the 1970s-2000 warming, has now peaked and we are likely to find out just how much warming it contributed as we see that boost to temperature taken away.
- The low level of sun-spots is indicative of cooling.
With two drivers suggesting cooling (and with CO2 having very little actual effect), it seems very likely we will see cooling. (N.B. – I cannot rule out the possibility that the two are connected and that AMO is induced by changes in sunspots)
Will this precipitate us into an ice-age?
Here’s the rub – because of the dangerous and idiotic obsession by academics on CO2 for the last decades – and thus the assumption that the lack of CO2 was the cause of the last ice-age, we don’t have a clue what actually causes ice-ages. So, we may be a decade away from seeing ice growing up the Thames and Glaciers beginning their march down to Glasgow. Or there may be no chance at all of it happening any time soon. But we just don’t know.
All anyone (or at least all I) can say with any certainty is that we are only likely to see a new ice-age when it gets colder. Which is obvious I know – but it means that I am much happier thinking it may warm than that we may see cooling!
What is the point in worrying as we can’t stop it?
There is a line of thought that goes like this: we can’t do anything about a new ice-age if it happens. So why bother to even contemplate it.
My answer to that is that whilst colder weather is a relatively benign issue in our advanced civilisations (there have only been 1million additional winter deaths in the UK during the period of the global warming scare), the social and economic impacts of a descent into colder climate would be horrendous. And, whilst it would be foolish to think we could stop climate change, we can at least prepare – or at the very least – start thinking about it and seeing if there is anything we can do to prepare.
In engineering terms, the risk is relatively low (1 in 20 in a lifetime), but the consequences are quite severe … not to a few … but to everyone in northern countries (i.e. those that saw glacial ice during the last ice-age)
The outlook for “thinking about preparing” is not good
If the Scottish government response to both climate and brexit tells me anything it is that politicians as a whole are gormless idiots (I used to think they had some “cunning plan” – that illusion was destroyed by the inept and tantrum like behaviour I saw in Scotland after Brexit). Likewise, academics are hopeless. I’m no longer naive enough to believe that academics can be trusted to work in the public interest – having them advise government is no better (or worse) than e.g. having Micro$oft advise government on computer security. Both groups are just pushing their own interests largely ignoring the public good. Nor do I have any faith at all in charity “pressure groups” – who have shown themselves to be extremely easily manipulated by big business as have greenpeace, FOE etc. on climate.
You’d think I would have faith in “climate sceptics” – but to be honest, sceptics often tend to have more faith in the “science” than academics. Instead, what I find is that they tend to get very angry over specific aspects which they’ve discovered is wrong. So, e.g. you’ll find many sceptics are far more wedded to the idea of “positive feedbacks” than most academics. This is because sceptics tend to have a “belief” in science, whereas academics come from an environment where they have seen many instances where their ideas will prove wrong. And likewise, sceptics tend to be very hostile to new ideas – science is “science” as it was taught to them at University. And it is only with great reluctance that they give up their long held views. In contrast academics know that “science” is largely a political body and what matters is whose ideas are currently in vogue.
The start of the next ice-age.
By my estimations there is around a 1-in-10 to 1-in-40 chance that in the next 100 years the “next ice-age” will start. That’s a clever way of saying “looking back people will say it started” … whilst avoiding the issue of how quickly the climate of Northern Europe will become uninhabitable. In other words, I’m not saying that in 100 years time there’s a ~1 in 20 chance that it will be accepted the ice-age has started. Yes (if it happens) we will have seen some extensive periods of cold, but there may well also be (fewer) periods of warm – instead in a long time, when people look back, there’s a ~1 in 20 chance they’ll see the change to severe cold as starting in the next 100 years.
What we really need is “global cooling alarm”.
By implication, at some point in time in decades to millennium after that “start”, Scotland will become all but uninhabited. If that happened over 1000 years, then it would be net migration of 100 people a week, 10-20 a day – a substantial number in the statistics, but easily hidden in the hustle and bustle at the various airport. If however it happened over a period of 100 years – well that would be similar in scale to the 1970s “highland clearances” and it would be noticed even by those who do not look at the statistics.
But likewise, where would all those people go? As the northern edges of the western civilisation haemorrhage people, they don’t just die – but instead will go somewhere. Such large numbers will quickly change the social and political make-up of any host countries.
Given that the most climate-sensitive economic sector is farming, most likely the cities will be relatively lightly hit – and it will be farming and other sectors (with no interest to city politicians) that will bear the brunt of the climate. So, to start of, “global cooling” is not going to look like a problem itself, instead “emigration/immigration” is going to be the big issue – and not from the cities – but from “climate sensitive” communities like farmers.
And notice how this is all the same – as the utter crap** we’ve heard about global warming (but in reverse).
And this is the whole point of this article. I personally don’t like all the “alarmist” crap. I feel that we ought to decide issues like this in a sane sensible way based on hard evidence and good science. But I also realise (as you’ll see from my comments about re useless politicians, NGOs, academics and media) that most people seem incapable of wanting to know about, let alone understanding or correctly interpreting the “hard facts”.
So, here I am just asking the question: if we have something as important as the potential end of western civilisation – and we know the idiots “running the show” haven’t a clue and don’t listen to common sense, perhaps we need the alarmist idiots who go about like headless chickens – to start clucking about global cooling?
**I’ve said many times it’s obvious the inter-glacial climate is capped from warming – so whilst I am not certain of the mechanism – I’m certain global warming alarmism is a total load of crap