Is Climate Change Becoming More Severe?
Most climatologists are in agreement that the global climate has warmed somewhere around a degree Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century and the easing of the Little Ice Age. Actually the IPCC placed the warming at about .85 degrees Celsius. However, and this is a fact: one degree of warming, or even two degrees, is well within the range of natural variability, as measured over decades, through centuries and up to millennia, and there is no way of determining that the warming of the last century is not entirely natural, or if not, to what extent it is natural versus anthropogenic.
It is also accepted by computer modelers working for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that the relatively miniscule increase of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels alone is not enough to initiate catastrophic warming, so the modelers amplify the effect by introducing positive feedbacks primarily in the form of water vapor. But the reality of such amplification is by no means certain either. In another essay I will take on the larger context of changing global temperatures through time, a perspective whose absence from the discussion precludes any meaningful comprehension of modern climate variability. [pullquote] However, and this is a fact: one degree of warming, or even two degrees, is well within the range of natural variability, as measured over decades, through centuries and up to millennia, and there is no way of determining that the warming of the last century is not entirely natural, or if not, to what extent it is natural versus anthropogenic. [/pullquote]
The assertion that we are seeing increased severity and frequency of storms, hurricanes, inclement weather, drought, and all the other things that are now being blamed upon or linked to “climate change” (meaning anthropogenic greenhouse warming) is contradicted by proxy records – the historical record and our own direct experience of the last century. There is no evidence, for example, that the severity, intensity or frequency of hurricanes have increased commensurate with rising CO2 concentrations. Likewise with droughts, storms in general or any other extreme weather or climate events. Yet the claim is regularly made and then propagated by mainstream media, as if it was a given, that all of this is happening right now to an intensified degree and somehow the claims are never accompanied by any verifiable supporting data or evidence. (See here for a tabulation of some of the extreme environmental and climate phenomenon occurring during several centuries before significant increases in atmospheric CO2)
Sea level rise over the last century, about 6 – 8 inches, has proceeded at the same pace that it did the previous century, before humans were burning fossil fuels. Glaciers have been receding rather steadily since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early to mid-19th century, again, since before humans were burning fossil fuels or contributing meaningfully to the atmospheric carbon pool. In future essays I shall examine some of these questions regarding increasing climate severity in greater depth.
Concluding Remarks and Thoughts for the Future
To bring this little treatise on the relationship between the planetary biosphere and carbon dioxide to a close, I will refer back to the work of Rogers and Dahlman, authors of Crop responses to CO2 enrichment, from which I quoted earlier. Reiterating the words of these authors, the two factors absolutely essential for proper function of vital plant processes are photosynthetic activity and water use, both which are enhanced in a carbon dioxide enriched environment, and, most importantly, as far as the human perspective is concerned, they say: “The proper function of these two vital plant processes can spell the difference between feast and famine,” – a circumstance that ought to be pondered deeply by those with a vested interest in the future.
“The difference between feast and famine.”
Adequate food and water are two of the most critical issues facing a large portion of the human race. With Earth’s population approaching 10 billion within two generations, an increase of 30% in the global food supply could spell the difference between prosperity and mass starvation. It should be borne in mind that famine often precedes the outbreak of widespread epidemics due to malnourishment that compromises human immune systems. Widespread hunger could be the factor that kindles the global pandemic that is so concerning to some medical professionals. To some eco-fanatics a major depopulation might be construed as a good thing. On the other hand it need not happen, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the human species can learn to live in harmony with the Earth. [pullquote]“The difference between feast and famine.”
Adequate food and water are two of the most critical issues facing a large portion of the human race. With Earth’s population approaching 10 billion within two generations, an increase of 30% in the global food supply could spell the difference between prosperity and mass starvation. It should be borne in mind that famine often precedes the outbreak of widespread epidemics due to malnourishment that compromises human immune systems. Widespread hunger could be the factor that kindles the global pandemic that is so concerning to some medical professionals. To some eco-fanatics a major depopulation might be construed as a good thing. On the other hand it need not happen, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the human species can learn to live in harmony with the Earth.[/pullquote]
Feast or famine?
Is it possible that the outcome of these two strikingly different scenarios for the future might be significantly affected by the addition of a bit more carbon dioxide to the global atmosphere?
Is it possible that the reclamation of regions of the planet now arid and desolate might become a reality by the addition of a bit more carbon dioxide to the global atmosphere?
Is it possible that the range of Earth’s vegetation canopy has been at its geographical and ecological limit under ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide and that its range is now expanding with increased availability of CO2?
Is it possible that through the release of a tiny fraction of the huge amount of stored carbon dioxide, the intensity of glacial-interglacial transitions might be ameliorated to some extent?
Is it possible that the cycle of glacial ages gripping the Earth for the past ~2.6 million years has caused the accelerated siphoning and sequestration of the global atmospheric carbon dioxide budget through intensified weathering, locking away vast amounts into the ocean floor and ultimately Earth’s crust, thereby contributing to a self-perpetuating, negative feedback, amplification of global cooling?
Is it possible that some factor, at this point unidentified, effected a major environmental downturn at the dawn of the Quaternary Period some 2.6 million years ago, an event from which the Earth never fully recovered, and that now, by releasing a tiny fraction of sequestered carbon dioxide, we humans are providing terrestrial nature with the remedy she requires to return to her full biological glory?
These are all legitimate questions to ask, questions we must not be deterred from asking because they go against the agendas of certain political factions who, if their policies come to pass, would drive human civilization straight back into the Dark Ages.
What is needed is an honest accounting of the true social cost of carbon, one that recognizes there is a direct benefit as well as a cost to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is also needed is research uncontaminated by political agendas. And, the inclusion of the study of NATURAL climate change – another 800 pound gorilla in the room – that Hermann Flohn, one of the founding fathers of modern climatology, called the Sword of Damocles suspended over the Earth.
I am not here arguing that all is rosy with continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. There will be negatives and limitations, as with any change or any course of action. For sure, the use of fossil fuels needs to be superseded at some point, but it has become clear that the case for imminent carbon dioxide fueled catastrophe is being overstated, and this for political and economic reasons. There are some very interesting possibilities on the horizon as far as alternatives to fossil fuel are concerned, but the irony is that to get there from here and to make the conversion is going to require a major expenditure of energy – energy available now and in the near future in the form of hydrocarbon based fuels. That is why it is critically important in the meantime that our extraction and consumption of energy from the vault of Nature be directed to the highest and best use.
Here we come to what I think is the most glaringly obvious first step in getting our human act together on planet Earth: The abolition of war, which, in its preparation and execution consumes extreme amounts of energy, more in aggregate than any other human activity, and, in its aftermath, continues consuming large amounts of energy in the reconstruction and repair of destroyed infrastructure that already consumed energy in its creation, and to which must be added the wasting of human capital and destroyed lives. The abolition of war would be the ultimate environmental and social conservation measure that we humans could realize, short of protecting the Earth from the next cosmic encounter. Beyond that, conservation and prudent use of all resources are, manifestly, very good things. How ironic that the environmental movement, generally composed of partisans of the Neo-liberal left, supports a Democratic Party that has continued to encourage and promote the endless interventions and wars that squander our resources and trample on our liberties. [pullquote]The abolition of war would be the ultimate environmental and social conservation measure that we humans could realize, short of protecting the Earth from the next cosmic encounter. Beyond that, conservation and prudent use of all resources are, manifestly, very good things. How ironic that the environmental movement, generally composed of partisans of the Neo-liberal left, supports a Democratic Party that has continued to encourage and promote the endless interventions and wars that squander our resources and trample on our liberties.[/pullquote]
Secondly, an unleashing of the creative, entrepreneurial, inventive spirit that was once the primary animating force of the great enterprise called America, will be the essential and indispensable prerequisite for achieving the conversion to a post-carbon future. This will come about as a natural consequence of the restoration of freedom, in spirit and in fact, freedom which is now being progressively and continuously abridged, degraded, and stifled by the disproportionate growth of political, governmental and corporate bodies that consume ever-greater amounts of our planet’s natural capital in the commission of unproductive, counterproductive, and destructive activities.
And, we need debate – lots of debate. Not “the science is settled, the debate is over” cop-out of misanthropic neo-luddite eco-fanatics, or the self-serving promoters of greenhouse warming doom. These misguided individuals would, in the implementation of their agenda, render the Earth vulnerable to the next cosmic encounter that will disrupt the balance of nature far beyond the meager influence of human beings. And if you think that this idea is far-fetched, or belongs in the realm of science fiction, well, all I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention. The scars of uncountable cosmic catastrophes are all around us, but few of us have eyes to see; the agents of these cosmic catastrophes are profusely abundant in our celestial neighborhood and are now showing themselves with disconcerting frequency. Evidence of the real threat to the environment of this planet is preserved beneath our feet and displayed over our heads – it is undeniable and it is there for all to see. But, billions of dollars are being spent every year to create the illusion that human activities are destroying the Earth and too many people are falling for the computerized smoke and mirrors and statistical sleight of hand that has transformed a precious, life-sustaining trace gas into a ghastly demon of planetary destruction that can only be subdued by totalitarian control of society and a massive wealth transfer into the hands of government and vested interests.
So, in light of all of the foregoing, I am compelled to ask this question: Could it possibly be that what we have been told now for almost three decades by promoters of greenhouse doom, self-serving political and economic partisans, and fanatical environmentalists who obsess over a slight increase in a vital trace gas and believe that planetary salvation requires terminating industrial civilization is the complete opposite of the reality of the matter?
On the other hand the conclusion has become unavoidable that by releasing a few hundred gigatons of the more than 100 million gigatons of carbon dioxide locked away in the rocks of this planet, we are literally stimulating a greening of the Earth along with enough gentle warming to help nudge the planet out of the Little Ice Age, results completely unanticipated at the commencement of the fossil fuel age.
Meanwhile, to borrow Hermann Flohn’s metaphor, there IS a Sword of Damocles that threatens the Earth, but our fixation on this life-giving trace gas as the agent of doom diverts our attention from the cosmic beast who lurks in the great deep – the beast that our ancestors knew all too well – and whose progeny hovers just outside the range of our perception in the realm of Uoroboros.
Ὧδε ἡ σοφία ἐστίν. ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου· ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ.
(Nestle GNT 1904)
21st Century Translation: Here is Wisdom: Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the Beast, for it is the number of carbon based life.
If you would like to help us continue to produce independent media without commercial advertising please visit our store!
Your purchases, monthly subscriptions and donations help us to continue providing this paradigm shifting knowledge to the world.
Featured Products
Depression and anxiety are associated with increased risk for impotence Viagra bietet Sildenafil ist hier http://zhpc.nl/viagra-kopen/. Unser Angebot wird Sie interessieren!
What is bothersome about this marginal debate allowed into the public spectrum….is that almost all solutions revolve around cash or tax revenue…..being converted into a redistribution scheme, which has zero effect upon carbon, and merely makes the carbon discussion appear to be more about wealth redistribution than anything else. If you want to really stir the pot….go set up a value for each of the fifty states and show each state’s own carbon footprint and then tax upon each state in this manner. Go watch how five or six states go nuts (particularly NY state).
Thank you for your in-depth research and advocacy for truth, Mr. Carlson. Isn’t it unsettling that carbon is 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons – the Number of Man and more evidence of advanced ancient science? And the Number of the Beast if the globalists’ intention to replace cash with a carbon chip were successful?
Also, may I suggest you put links to the other 5 parts at the top of all 6 parts? Each part presently has a link to only the previous part, so it’s difficult to navigate. And there’s no indication it’s a 6-part essay until part 5. By the way, the link from part 2 to part 3 isn’t clickable. I hope that helps.