It is the best of times; the worst of times. Eco-doom is imminent, says the New Scientist. It is worse than we thought, they say.
- arctic ice is thinning
- warmer air is leading to more extreme climate
- agricultural yields are falling in consequence
- sea levels will rise by more than a meter by 2100
- The earth will cease to absorb the CO2 it currently absorbs, leading to ever more CO2 in the atmosphere
The New Scientist is in the business of selling magazines. So you have to be slightly indulgent towards their catastrophism. After all, panic sells almost as well as sex. And they play into the existing mood by saying it is worse than we thought, which was already bad enough.
Now let’s go to a scientist of a less doomist persuasion. We are heading into significant climate cooling, largely caused by reduced solar output, says a guest post in Watts Up with That by Dr. Norman Page.
Note the long term trend. It is getting colder as we head away from the post-glacial maximum of 10,000 years ago and follow the slope gently downward into the next ice-age, as we have done several times before.
The question for you as an amateur is this: What do you think is more likely? That a recent trend since 1850 -global warming – is likely to prevail against a trend underway since before the fall of the western Roman Empire?
I quote Dr. Page on the relationship of the IPCC, upon which The New Scientist bases its climate hysteria, and its uni-causal emphasis on man-made CO2, to what is usually understood to be science.
Over the last 10 years or so as new data have accumulated the general trend and likely future course of climate change has become reasonably clear. The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. The major natural factors controlling climate change have also become obvious.Unfortunately the general public has been bombarded by the scientific and media and political establishments with anthropogenic global warming – anti CO2 propaganda based on the misuse and misrepresentation of already shoddy IPCC “science” for political ,commercial and personal ends.
The IPCC climate science community largely abandoned empirical Baconian inductive scientific principles and built worthless climate models based on unfounded assumptions designed to show that anthropogenic CO2 was the driving force behind changing climate. Most of the IPCC output is useless as a tool for predicting future climate trends and their impacts and in particular the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers can be safely ignored for practical purposes. The divergence between the IPCC Hansen projections and the observed trends is shown below.
Fig 1 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
I cannot use the word “climate science” without strong measures of irony and derision, for these reasons.