Monday, April 24, 2017
Global freezing

Global freezing

Volume 1501, Number 3

Another “Year Without a Summer” 

The year 1816 is known as the Year Without a Summer because of severe summer climate abnormalities that caused average global temperatures to decrease by 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F). This resulted in major food shortages.  Evidence suggests the anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic event.  (Here)

An essayist predicts:

The winter of 2013-14 bears a striking resemblance to that of 1815-16, and there is every reason to believe that what follows will repeat the pattern of earlier periods of extreme cold.  The consequences will not be pleasant.  .

My prediction of a “year without summer” is based partly on the record of 1816 and other years of increased volcanic activity.  Like 1815, 2013 saw significant volcanic activity, with major eruptions in Indonesia, Alaska, Italy, Argentina, and Japan.  

Indeed, global warming alarmists display all the symptoms of “recency bias.”  Relative to 1850, global temperatures have indeed risen by some one degree Celsius, but that calculation compares current temperatures with those at the trough of a four-century cold spell.  Relative to longer-term global norms, today’s temperatures are not unusually warm.  They are comparable to temperatures that prevailed during the Medieval Climate Optimum of 950 through 1250 AD.  During this period, a Norse settlement thrived in Greenland and even reached North America.

Like the Medieval Climate Optimum, the past 150 years of warming has actually been highly beneficial: it is no coincidence that the greatest period of economic improvement in human history has occurred precisely during the period of warming since 1850.  The danger is that global temperatures may now be entering a new and ominous period of extended cold.   

While government can do nothing to change the weather, in regard to either cooling or warming, it can direct resources toward productive ends rather than squandering them on green energy boondoggles and other wasteful projects.  Most importantly, it can lower overall spending and thus lower taxes on individuals and corporations, thereby strengthening their ability to withstand economic shocks such as those brought about by weather events like that of 1816…and 2014.  By allowing the private sector to expand and prosper in good times, government could help prepare for inevitable climate cycles.

With GDP growth of less than 2% – the average for more than five years now – there is no margin of error in the event of severe climate events.  And such events are inevitable, not because of human impact on the environment, but because of natural forces – the same forces that caused the great freeze of 1816.

The best response to climate change – the natural sort, as well as the sort purportedly caused by human industry – is to end green energy subsidies, lower taxes on individual and corporations, eliminate unnecessary regulation of industry, and allow the free market to operate on its own.  Adding 11% to global GDP each year (estimated amount spent on failed “green” projects) would lift billions out of poverty and assure the well-being of all, no matter what challenges the climate presents.

This essay presents a great deal of well-considered argument, unlike the oft-heard “global — warming, change, climate change” histrionics. It’s probably being vilified by movie stars, “activists,” and other self-appointed experts already.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*