History Shows Government Preparations for Climate Change are Completely Wrong.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) implies current climate change and its rate are beyond any previous changes. They are wrong. Worse, despite moving the goalposts from the threat of global warming to the threat of climate change they examine only warming and its negative impacts, while the world cools. As a result governments are completely unprepared as history shows.
The IPCC structure was designed to ensure one outcome – warming due to human CO2. Working Group I of the IPCC is limited by definition and terms of reference to that result. They focus almost exclusively on human CO2 and assume an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. Their computer models are so programmed, which predetermines the outcome; despite all records showing the opposite relationship. As a result all their projections are wrong. They project warming, but the world cools.
IPCC Working Groups II and III speculate on impacts of warming and offer mitigation proposals. They accept Working Group I’s result that warming is inevitable and narrow the results by examining only negative impacts. They imply rate of change is beyond plant and animal’s adaptive capabilities. They’ve convinced politicians climate change is occurring, but only toward warmer temperatures. The theme is adaptation, but they are only adapting to warming. Good leadership would at least prepare contingency plans for a cooling trend. If you must take a singular approach, preparing for cold is more logical because if you are wrong adaptation to warm is much easier. Prepare for warm and it cools the adaptation is much more difficult and expensive.
History confirms adaptation to cold is a bigger challenge and that is where the temperatures are heading. Global temperature and sunspot activity are related through variations in cosmic radiation reaching the earth and changing cloud cover. More sunspots relate to warmer temperatures and fewer to colder. Currently sunspot numbers are the lowest since a previous cold spell associated with the Dalton Minimum between 1790 and 1830. There was an even lower number of sunspots during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1710 coincident with an even colder spell, known as the Little Ice Age. Some, including me, think that such a low cycle is increasingly more likely.
Some of the negative impacts of cooling;
reduced agriculture lands, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
increased energy demands for home heating, industry, and transportation.
increased frost damage to all structures, but especially roads.
increased cost of snow removal.
reduced length of growing season.
<span style="font-family: Times New So much so that Arthur Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes describe buy-detox.com as so transcendentally stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its secondary action is a matter of small moment. Roman,serif;”>increased deaths due to cold.
increased sea ice limiting shipping seasons.
industrial and business competitiveness will change.
changing economies will change global power structure.
Governments prepare for the wrong overall change, but they are not preparing for short term changes, such as single year events, at all. If the trend is warmer then a single hot year causes some problems, but nothing like the impact of a dramatically cold year in a cooling tend. The possibility of such extremes increase because as the world cools the amplitude of the Rossby Waves increases. These Waves occur in the Circumpolar vortex, more commonly known as the Jet Stream, and determine the weather pattern in the middle latitudes between 30 and 65° of latitude. There is no preparation for such an event.
An example of such a year occurred in 1709. It was close to the nadir of the cold period known as the Little Ice Age. In a 2009 New Scientist article Stephanie Pain wrote:
“People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken”s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.”
Notice the comment that “trees exploded”; it’s estimated the frost killed half the walnut trees in England.
Prior to that year walnut was the wood of choice for European furniture makers. In southern England, where it was introduced, along with chestnut trees, during the warmer Roman period, it was not as plentiful, but still very much desired. Walnut, especially Burl Walnut with its fantastic colours and patterns, is still the wood of choice for luxury cars like a Rolls Royce. Naturally, there was resistance to imports of mahogany from Central America by walnut producers. They pushed the government to put tariffs in place to protect their industry. Then nature took a hand.
It didn’t force an immediate change because furniture producers let the wood mature for up to five years after it was cut, but mahogany with its properties, colour, and texture was an excellent replacement. Furniture producers pushed for lifting restrictions on imports and it became the wood of choice.
A major problem facing US commerce is expanding domination of government policy on free markets that limit reactions and accommodation to changing conditions. Some guidelines are reasonable, but they are beyond that, so removing semblance of a free market. Commerce now involves trying to end run rules and regulations. Regulations are so complicated that it is no longer a matter of simply change or even elimination.
Extensive and unnecessary damage is already inflicted on world economies by regulations to “stop climate change”. Inadequate energy production created by the switch from coal and nuclear to alternate energies exists in many countries and regions. In most countries, energy production is inadequate to maintain current requirements even in a warmer world. Demands will be much greater in a colder world, yet government acceptance of the created climate science of the IPCC guarantees we are not ready.