Oh No! Not Global Cooling

Below is from an article by Noel Sheppard published on 7/12/12.

"A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:

Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.

Here's a nice little graph to demonstrate what's really happened in the past 2,000 years:

 

The new study indicates that . . . the current warming (is) less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it."

I remember talking in the 1970's with a good friend of mine about Lake Michigan water levels.  He lived most of his life along that lake and he explained the various cycles that affect water levels.  There are short term, intermediate term and long term cycles, each bringing with them their highs and lows.  Thinking about that is one reason I love the graph above.  It covers over 2100 years yet if you take any smaller segment of it and then try to extrapolate from that information a prediction about the future you may end up being very wrong.

'But surely climate scientist's have factored in these fluctuations into their computer models' you may say to me, and I would reply, "No, and don't call me Shirley."

Here is what I know.  Are things in general warming up around here in West Michigan from when I was a boy 60 years ago?  Maybe yes, Holland had to move her Tulip Time festival up a week to help alleviate  more "stem fests".  You can't reason with an elderly angry tourist (although most of their buses are now hitting the casino's instead).  Does that mean that the seasons are changing because of emissions of man made carbon dioxide?  Maybe no, there are a lot of other factors involved and name calling to stifle any serious debate has always been a major pet peeve of mine.

First you have to know something about scientist.  Group think is the norm not the exception.  The reason is, as I've opined before, that grant funding, the life blood of scientists, depends on agreeing with what in reality is an establishment.  They are known to eat their babies.  Gradually some group manages to upset the apple cart and new thought can arise but now our graph is firmly (though becoming transitional)  in the man made carbon dioxide is bad for us camp.

What are "other factors"?  Well, sun spot cycles for one.  There happens to be direct correlation, traceable for centuries, which show the impact of sun spot activity on the earth's temperature.  Another is volcanic activity.  An active volcano by itself can emit more CO2 than all the cars, trucks, factories and buildings in the world combined.  Man made production of carbon dioxide, depending on who you believe, is anywhere from 3 1/2 to 7% of the total.  All the emission regulations in the world will barely affect the per cent of CO2 in our climate.  It even seems that there are benefits to the presence of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  It makes plants grow, it shields our planet from being toasted to a crisp by the sun and here increased levels may actually be a factor in the cooling, not heating of our planet.

Before I go any farther I must admit that there are obviously some bad side effects to man made emissions (my own included) and that sensible regulations are wise.  Smog in closed environments such as LA or Mexico City is a health hazard and must be addressed.  Yet the politics involved today promoting so called global warming, with solutions such as the Kyoto Treaty and regulations that will close all of our coal production is really crazy and the purpose behind it is not the health of mankind but rather social engineering.

Consider excerpts from a speech given today by our Secretary of State, John Kerry in Indonesia (perhaps the cause of this rant).  

"Climate change may be the most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."  (Well, that and a bad Hersey bar)  

"Urgent action is needed".  (before I leave office)  

"Those who deny it are flat earthers"  (with my head proudly in the sand)

"We should not allow a tiny minority of shaky scientists and sever and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts". (hey, I know some of those quacks)  

"Nor should we allow any room for those who think the costs associated with doing the right thing out weigh the benefits".  (don't you love this most open of administrations)

"The science is unequivocal".  (and I've got some investments with my buddy Al in green technology)

And my favorite; "The solution is a new global energy policy".  (carbon credits, the intention of which is income redistribution but the reality is that the rich will get richer as will the ruling elite and the poor will be even more dependent on government and the middle class will suffer the lion share of the burden, at least in our country)