Energy Prospectus

Global Cooling is much worse.

The Weather is About to Change
"In our Q4 2019 essay, “Agricultural Markets: What Sunspots Mean for Global Growing
Conditions,” we wrote about the potential impact of sunspot cycles on global weather
patterns. We highlighted how the current warming trend, which began approximately 100
years ago, also happened coincidentally with an unprecedented surge in sunspot activity,
now known as the “Modern Maximum.” We noted evidence now suggests we are heading
into a long period of declining sunspot activity, which could usher in a period of cooler and
much more volatile weather.
The 25th sunspot cycle has started, and all indications point to another weak cycle. For
example, the Ames Research Center of NASA has published a paper, “Heliophysics Modeling
& Simulation Project,” that attempts to predict the Sun’s sunspot activity levels in this 25th
cycle. The paper concluded that the upcoming cycle 25 will be extremely weak, producing
a maximum level of sunspots of only 50, as compared to the peak sunspot levels of 120 in
cycle 24, peak levels of 150 in cycle 23, and a peak level of 200 in cycle 22. The NASA paper
concluded that, the upcoming solar activity levels in cycle 25 would likely be the weakest
in the last 200 years. If reduced sunspot activity ultimately results in global cooling, then
upcoming weakness in sunspot cycle 25 will confirm a long-term cooling weather trend has
begun. 2020 was the second warmest year on record; however, in retrospect, last year might
be the peak in this 100-year warming cycle. Historical cooling weather trends have been
associated with suboptimal growing conditions."
- Goehring & Rozencwajg Q4 2020 Natural Resource Market Commentary 2-11-2021

PS: Don't worry, the FEAR of Global Warming will soon be replaced with the FEAR of Global Food Shortages. CNN needs "Click Bait" and Washington needs FEAR to control the population.

For the record: I believe in "Climate the Same". Short-term stuff is just "weather".

Global warming’s biggest promoter: the UN
February 10, 2021

IN PREVIOUS ARTICLES, we have seen there is no consensus among the world’s scientists on the premise of man-made global warming. The position statements of a number of the world’s leading research universities and academic societies demonstrate that AGW remains an unproven hypothesis. If the world’s leading environmental scientists have not concluded that AWG is a scientific fact, who is pushing this unproven conclusion, and why are they doing it?

The driving force behind the AGW hypothesis has always been politics, not science. The primary political force has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (“IPCC”). The IPCC was established by the United Nations in 1988 to “provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

In its first report issued in 1990, the IPCC concluded that AGW was a fait accompli. For the IPCC, the question has never been whether global warming is actually occurring and, if so, whether human activity is the cause. There has been no effort by the IPCC to report the current state of scientific knowledge regarding supposed climate change, listing the various theories and known facts.

The subterfuge of the IPCC from the beginning has been to “confirm” the AGW hypothesis by attempting to show the amount of global warming that would occur with man-made increases in CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere over time. The IPCC has failed repeatedly in its predictive efforts.

The most fundamental problem is the enormous scale and complexity of the open system that characterizes the earth’s environment. This open system is impossible to replicate as a controlled environment in a laboratory. The AGW hypothesis cannot be tested by experimentation, as required by the scientific method.

The alternative to the above approach is to develop a computer model that attempts to simulate a controlled environment. To this end, the IPCC has developed computer models that are so complex that they require multiple Cray XC 40 supercomputers to run them. Even so, the IPCC models have never been able to accurately predict climatic changes based on simulated cause and effect. Complexity does not equal accuracy in science.

Computer modeling of climate change is fraught with difficulties.

First of all, the earth’s climate is far too complex to be accurately reduced to a mathematical model. Second, in order to assess the accuracy of a model and further refine it, predictive results must be able to be confirmed by back-testing. This involves substituting actual recorded historical values for certain input climate variables, such as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, to determine if the model output accurately matches the actual recorded environmental temperatures associated with these variables.

Back-testing the predictive output of the IPCC models has never been successful. The critical problem is that accurate measurement of global temperature data only became possible some 40 years ago, with the advent of NOAA’s polar-orbiting satellites. It is impossible to accurately back-test models predicting changes in environmental temperatures over thousands of years when only 40 years of actual data exist for backtesting.

Reflecting on these problems, the IPCC models have consistently failed to accurately predict past or future results. Since 1990 the IPCC has been predicting global temperature increases that are more than twice that which was actually measured later using satellite technology. Given such consistent failure, the dictates of the scientific method would normally (absent political intervention) require that the AGW hypothesis be declared falsified, and either be modified or abandoned.

Why would the IPCC continue to promote a falsified AGW hypothesis?

Why would some world politicians continue to endorse it?

In its Sept. 3, 2016, report, the IPCC stated that it seeks to redress “world-wide socioeconomic inequalities among nations and peoples” brought about by climate change.

In other words, it seems clear that the IPCC’s real goal is to use the premise of man-made global warming to restructure world society and effect a transfer of wealth from developed nations to developing nations. And that supports the globalist agenda of certain world leaders and their political allies. The Paris Climate Accord is the vehicle intended to affect these changes.
------------------------------
FWIW:
> That big bright spot in the sky controls the Earth's temperature. We call it the Sun.
> Global cooling would be much worse than Global warming because it would reduce the amount of farmland.