Headlines over solar cycle 25 and potential global cooling

There’s a story about solar cycle 25, and a potential “mini ice age” in the UK Daily Mail by David Rose that is making headlines today, even hitting the Drudge Report. The headline is:

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

The graph (from the Daily Mail article) below looks familiar.

From the story:

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Readers may recall that WUWT had this story on January 25th via David Archibald: First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years The graph he provided matches almost exactly.

He wrote then:

Using the Livingston and Penn Solar Cycle 25 amplitude estimate, this is what the solar cycle record is projected to look like:

image

And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.

The Daily Mail article also says:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

That’s essentially true, as we can see in this woodfortrees.org graph of HadCUT3 data.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

Of course, the linear trend line may be sensitive to the endpoints, and it has an ever so slight rise to it, but there’s no denying that that have not been peaks larger than 1997/98 which was an super El Niño event. The 2010 El El Niño didn’t come close.

When 2012 data is added, I suspect that trend line will be downward much like the trend for the last ten years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

The Daily Mail article continues:

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

The solar Ap geomagnetic index is the lowest in the record, and suggests the sun is lagging:

image

Nature (the reality, not the journal) will be the final arbiter of truth in this. We live in interesting times.

186 thoughts on “Headlines over solar cycle 25 and potential global cooling

  1. Henry James said something like “To have a choice and not make it — is still a choice.”

    These so called climate scientists have a choice – they could admit they don’t know much and just shut up.

    Last week would have been a good time to have made that choice; or last year; or the year before that; . . .

  2. Despite spending millions of pounds on AGW the UK is still at the same latitude as Labrador, what gives???? I don’t know what climatic events caused the LIA but the geological record suggests that they were not “a very rare and exciting event”

    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become ”a very rare and exciting event.

  3. To the extent that the proponents of AGW are also interested in the controls they think are necessary to tax and bend humanity to their whims, let’s not let them jump off the warming wagon and onto the cooling wagon to continue their need to control.

  4. Has any body seen whatever it is the Met Office has published? I have had a quick look but the site was so slow I ran out of time. I really would like to know what the Met Office is saying and what is Daily Mail hyperbole.

  5. John F. Hultquist says:
    January 29, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    “These so called climate scientists have a choice – they could admit they don’t know much and just shut up.”

    No, there’s too much at stake for them. They have to stonewall it.

  6. I can almost hear heads imploding over this. But hoping that Hansen et.al. will be out of work is silly, they’ll come up with some magical pixie dust formula that has the sprinkling of unicorn meat to prove to the world that this is wrong.

  7. I’m happy to learn my grandchildren will know and experience snow after all, but they may be perplexed by the global warming taxes they will be paying and which were imposed before they were alive let alone old enough to vote.

    Anyone know what kind of range a Chevy Volt gets in a December knee-deep cold snap? Battery fires might prove to be a blessing on a crowded turnpike.

    On the topic of subsidized lifestyles, anyone care to venture a guess how long it will be before signs are posted for Diamond lanes requiring buses, 3 or more occupants, or electric and hybrid cars only?

    Another interesting thing – with CO2 as a threat we could have adapted. With global cooling as a threat we’re going to have to consider mass migrations and reworking our shipping/container port strategy. Coastal and island aquifer lenses are going to draw down as sea level falls. Fishing fleets will need to relocate. It will take more than an old icebreaker and Russian tanker to feed fuel into Nome. It will be a bad time to live in Hawaii, a place very vulnerable to service interruptions and where everything essential for life comes in on a ship or a plane. They can turn off the pumps in New Orleans. Russia might want Estonia back. Canadian grain will be but a memory and any resistance to tar sand development will be quickly pushed aside. Bolivia will be vacated. Frakking will be mandated.

    Is any of this a topic in town hall meetings in your area?

    I’m just guessing, of course – kind of like Hansen does.

  8. Interesting times ahead for sure. Dalton or Maunder minimum Take 2 versus the highest levels of CO2, methane, and N2O in at least 800,000 years. One thing for certain, one of the groups (warmist or skeptic) will have far fewer members by 2030, but the two psychologically different groups will no doubt have found some totally new topic to squabble about. Probably something to do with civil rights for robots or whether China has the right to claim territorial rights to Mars. This is a most exciting time to be alive!

  9. If the Met really said that the cooling wouldn’t be significant they should be defunded. Their function is to help their government react to weather/climate and to minimize the potential harm of a serious cold trend is … incompetent at best.

  10. Paul coombes says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:29 pm
    Has any body seen whatever it is the Met Office has published? I have had a quick look but the site was so slow I ran out of time.

    Ditto

  11. So keep emitting that CO2 together
    Raising the spirit of – green acres of crops

    Politically we win though, climatically,
    Here comes the sun
    would be less harsh a fate for us.

  12. The death of global warming is here as far as I can see. How can they defend 15 years of absolutely no warming? They keep claiming the world is practically on fire and the two biggest groups that advocated that warming was taking place release all the data showing there is none… that’s the end of any doubts whatsoever.

    The science really is settled now my friends. Science trumped alarmism today and I believe they’ll have to go back to the drawing board now for the next new scare!

  13. Isn’t predicting the outcome of Solar Cycle 25 while we are still making our interesting way through 24 the equivalent of predicting a 6C rise in Global temperatures by the end of the Century on account of a trace gas in our Atmosphere?

    Yours sceptically ;-)
    Dave

  14. R. Gates – it would be best for all if your alarmist leanings were both based on science and a reality, but neither appears to be so. I’d rather the Met Office were right when they were banging the gong of global warming. I could deal with that. But now they’re jerking the clapper of global cooling and that’s going to be nasty.

    As for the rest of your worries, I doubt non-leftists are going to be too preoccupied about robotic rights (they don’t exist and at least half the world doesn’t care) and extraterrestrial claims (they’re unenforceable and meaningless) won’t show up above the fold except as do crazy people who claim the world as we know it is ending. Bundle up. I wish it weren’t so.

    Crazy in Seattle

  15. Mashiki said: “hoping that Hansen et.al. will be out of work is silly”

    Undoubtedly. Paul Ehrlich was wrong over and over again, and still has a considerable fan club, and public TV willing to do special episodes of Nature or Nova devoted to him. You can pretty much forget about debunking by mere facts.

  16. The coming decades cold will shut the AGW brigade up.

    I can hear Pachbauri saying “we used the precautionary approach back then, becusese of the possiblility, which now turns out to be wrong, of dangerous warming, but this is how science progresses etc etc”. A long way down from the pedestal of “voodoo science”.

  17. Gah! When i was a nipper studying geology (and there was much less geology about in them days) only a few weird quaternary geologists did anything much about climate. Now everybodies interested in studying it … And we still haven’t a clue.

    P.S. I realise its probably an oversight, but I’m a geologist (at least by first degree) and I’m still waiting for my cheque from big oil. If any generous oil companies need to contact me I am happy to furnish an address.

  18. I note that at the Guardian they have decided to ignore this story, instead they are going on the attack against the UK Prime Ministers reluctance to attend the Rio+20 summit taking place in June.

    Personally I fear for the Guardian when it allows articles such as the one published yesterday, just take a look at some of the infantile sentences that litter the article:

    “The Rio Earth Summit +20 will be the most important environmental summit, certainly since the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, and arguably since the first Rio Summit 20 years ago. President Obama is unlikely to be there as it is an election year and his Republican opponents regard anything to do with the health of the planet as a Commie plot”

    The fact is that for this summit climate security is the final topic to be discussed:

    The Financial Crisis
    Food Crisis
    Migration
    Energy Crisis
    Water Scarcity
    Biodiversity and Ecosystem loss
    Desertification
    Natural Disasters and the ability to prepare for and recover from them
    Achievement of the MDGs
    Globalisation
    Health Security
    Increased resilience at the national and global level
    Climate Security

    The hyperbole on display within the environmental movement in the UK is truly astounding, for many people the article in the Daily Mail has reinforced their personal experiences that climate change has nothing to do with the earth, instead it is just another snake oil money making scheme.

  19. Whatever else happens, the Thames in London will not freeze – not with massive power stations like Didcot pumping waste heat into it.

  20. The Bear quotes:

    `Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases …’

    Nothing will change their minds. Nothing at all.

    Aaaaaahhhhh …..

  21. People reading this must bear two things in mind, firstly that the met office is a govt owned organisation and the govt concerned (UK) is legally obliged by its own legislation to reduce co2 emissions, so the case that such emissions are harmful needs to be continually ‘proved.’

    The second is that whilst the Met office is a govt body it is being groomed for privatisation and has become extremely commercial and needs to sell its services by demonstrating that it has products worth selling. There are a lot of jobs, prestige and contracts involved and the push to do this is nowhere better exemplified by such non positions as one of the people mentioned in the press release whose job is ‘climate change detection scientist.’

    I think that politically or scientifically it is impossible for such organisations as the Met office or Nasa to admit they may be wrong, as a lot of money, contracts and prestige depends on them being ‘right.’
    tonyb

  22. The Met Office strikes back

    The Met office has responded to the article, calling out Rose on his misrepresentations:

    This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

  23. In the same week that the Daily Mail reports cycle 25 with the possibilities of cooling, they also reported on our Government department DEFRA who have just produced an expensive report on how climate change (still warming for them) is going to effect every aspect of life in the UK.

    It is good to see UK tax money spent by people who are all joined up….

  24. The people who commented here are the composites of horror movie characters. Bluster and disdain while things are calm. Contempt for those who can think ahead for more than twenty minutes. When disaster strikes. The tough guy in calm times turns into a panicked child and it’s every man for himself. Parents depriving their children of food because it is short supply and too expensive. Starving the next generation to death to save them selves a few bucks as a downpayment on their future of dispair. Keeping taxes low by denying our irresponsible behaviour is having a detrmental impact on the earth and our quality of life is like saving money on our medical bills by denying we have cancer. All that we saved in denial can never be spent after we are dead, but we keep on denying and we keep dying in misery.

  25. R. Gates says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Gates Your current fence sitting will likely lose you the status of WUWt’s most favourite troll. Please don’t turn. There aren’t many like you left.

  26. Personally I find the exaggerations of the ‘coldists’ just as irritating as the overblown ‘we are all doomed’ rhetoric of some of the CAGW crowd.

    I am one of those boring people who like to check references, especially when faced with an article here which reports what the Daily Mail said that NASA said.

    So here is what NASA actually said : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

    and here is what the Met Office says : http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

    Read and make up your own minds about the accuracy or otherwise of the Daily Mail

  27. I’d be interested to see what the climate models say if you were put the current prediction of solar cycle in. I’m sure the forecasts were based on a more active sun than we are currently experiencing.

  28. So the question is, when can the models be declared bust officially? Well surprisingly not long.

    It suits the warmists to talk about 2030 or 2050, it pushes the day of reckoning back to when they are dead or long retired. However that is not so. When you are aiming to end up somewhere you have a journey to make along the way. I don’t think we are going to wake up one day in 2050 and find the temps have gone up 2.0C overnight!

    Actually most data sets falsified the models back in 2006 as you will see when you continue with this post.

    I have raised the issue of free parameters many times before in the AGW debate.

    How many GCMs are there? 55 or so?

    I have said on a number of occasions send me 1000 or so random spins of a roulette wheel and I will send you a model that will show you can win money when applied to the data you have sent me. Hell, send me 55 lots of data and I will send you models that will win you money against all of them.

    Of course a lot of these models are going to be different, not majorly different mind you. They will all use the same parameters some will be fixed but some will be free, like bet size, frequency of bet etc. The value of the parameters will however be slightly different between the models again not majorly.

    My models will be very similar to the GCMs except that there will be less free parameters and the difference between the value of the free parameters will also be very likely less than in the GCMs. For aerosols for instance there can be a factor of 4 in the value of the parameter between models!

    Of course someone will say a lot of these models are different and at the absolute best, only one could be right. Well that is exactly what is said about the GCMs. So the models are averaged and their output, we are now assured, is very close to reality having averaged out any gross errors.

    Well I just do the same to my roulette models and get an output that I could now claim is close to reality and that reality is that you can win money consistently playing roulette.

    So what is the difference between the the two sets of models?

    Well we know for certain that you can not consistently win money playing roulette, we are confident in the Laws of Probability. We know, though my math is sound in my models, that I have obtained the result by use of the free parameters and my assigning particular values to them. In short they are bollocks!

    Of course we know for sure that climate modelers make use of many free parameters in their models, aerosols, black carbon, clouds, land use etc etc. However, because climate science is still in its infancy (and that is why there are so many free parameters!) I cannot declare them an absolute bust as I can with my roulette models.

    Using the models to establish some sort of Law or theory of climate science is so arse about that I might as well use my roulette models to create a new theory of probability!

    However, whilst they might provide talking points and allow you to draw up some interesting possible scenarios why would anyone imbue them with great credibility, notwithstanding that the math might stand up, when so many free parameters are in play?

    Like the Nikolov and Zeller paper, the math may appear ok but with so many free parameters, how much trust can you have in the outcome?

    Not a great deal in my opinion.

    Like the climate models the paper makes some interesting talking points but is it anywhere near proof of anything?

    Well like the GCMs clearly not.

    Say the theory of probability was in the same state as climate science ie in its infancy with the working and measurement of the many connected processes and parameters by no means tied down. Well just producing another model of your own is no good, you are still having to rely on the same or similar free parameters and just assigning different values is not going to convince anyone.

    This is the stupidity of the warmists argument that skeptics should produce their own models. Well I certainly could do it, given the time, and would definitely produce a model that would show what I wanted it to show, given the number of free parameters. It would all be a waste of time though as warmists would just argue that I have assigned values to parameters to fit my preconception. It would be just pot. kettle, black.

    So what is the best way of showing that a model is almost certainly wrong whilst you wait for science to establish the true value of the parameters involved? Well just throw more actual data at them.

    In the case of my roulette models doubling the data to 2000 rather than 1000 spins is almost certain to lead to a worse averaged performance. Some of the models might do a little better but most almost certainly will do worse. If I keep throwing the data at the models they will all eventually fail. Of course if my models were accurate then that process would be the exact reverse as I threw more data at them.

    You could set a rule for models then, that stated, if more data produces a worse performance from the start, then the probability is that they are in error and if that trend continues with more data input then that probability will increase until it approaches absolute certainty.

    So what position are we in with the climate models? Well clearly they have performed worse from the start of new data input and that trend has continued as more annual data has become available. So they are well on their way to be disproved with near certainty. When can we declare this? Well when you look at the model runs they produced a result that from 1990 to 2030 a new global temperature record would be set within 8 years at the 95% confidence level.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    Now 1998 is still the record according to most data sets. That would mean the models could be said to have failed back in 2006. Most data sets falsified the models six years ago! However, the adjusted data set, under the control of Jim Hansen, GISS did show a marginal new record in 2005, ‘quelle surprise’ there!

    However, the model runs showed that a new unambiguous record, by at least 0.1C, would be set within 18 years at the 95% confidence level. No data set has shown this since 1998 and therefore we have to wait until 2016 and if no new unambiguous record has been set by then, we can declare the models are bust. The confidence level, that they are bust, is already very high, over 90% actually, but not at the 95% level yet.

    I wonder what the reaction will be of the warmists, if we get to 2016 with no new unambiguous record? Anybody think that they may suddenly decide that a 95% confidence level is no big deal in science anyway? Or perhaps GISS will suddenly discover, after a few adjustments, that 1998 wasn’t that hot after all!

    So Mr Gates et al what are your current confidence level that temperatures are going to end up where the models predict?

    Alan

  29. From the article:

    “According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830.”
    ————————————————————————————–
    Hilarious. Not 91%, or 93%, but 92% precisely.

    The people who issue these sorts of figures lack both a grounding in reality and a sense of the absurd.

  30. Met Office responds (29/1/12):

    “This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading”.

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

  31. I do somewhat worry that the “snowball earth” stories are falling into the same trap as the “global warming” ones .. ie making a large claim on the basis of very flimsy evidence. It would be good to be demanding the same level of critical analysis of these stories as we demand of the others.

  32. Sobering report, and the UK Met. Office cling to the ‘CO2 does it all’ claims. No Met Office it is the sun and the only heat source in this solar system that drives temperature and climate.

  33. Only a fool would say CO2 has more “energy” than the sun.

    Of course they’ve convinced themselves their “energy balance” is a sound starting point – my opinion is they’ve gotten it so wrong they are headed for total humiliation no matter what happens – warming or cooling.

    The cooling could be serious and if temperatures start to decrease because of decades long reduction in the Sun’s activity I do not believe CO2 will make even a jot of difference.

    If the warming were to recommence I do not believe CO2 will make even a jot of difference as surely the evidence is now overwhelming that the warming is natural, cyclical and THEY LIED about almost everything – including their pathetic excuses for “not showing their homework”.

    Didn’t Arrhenius – the “godfather” of the greenhouse effect – continue to believe in the “ether” theory long after it was debunked ?

  34. Hi noaaprogrammer,
    If you really are a computer programmer working for NOAA, will you create a time series chart based on the data at http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/
    NOAA provides data for each day, but inexplicably (!) they don’t compile it into a useful chart. And not coincidently they’ve made it awkward for anyone browsing their webpages to compile such a chart.
    Obviously they didn’t want to show the USA weather getting colder and snowier from 2004 to 2011 in correlation with the SC23-24 minimum of 2007-2010

  35. Last week we had the letter in the WSJ from sixteen sceptical scientists proclaiming the sensible view on the future of climate. Now this from a group of established and revered solar specialists. But nothing will change regarding our politicians. They will refuse to listen. They will continue to trust the Met Office, the IPCC and the likes of Dr David Viner of UEA (he of ‘the snow is a thing of the past,’ quote.) Pathetic, absolutely pathetic!

  36. Sunspots are not likely to be the only cause of the natural 60 year and ~1,000 year cycles which are readily observed in the data and which are the only factors affecting climate, seeing that anthropogenic contributions are negligible and backradiation has no effect.

    Sunspots may be just indicative of an independent cause for both solar activity and Earth climate. Remember that the last long-term maximum in sunspots was nearly 50 years before the 1998 temperature maximum, so correlation is far from perfect.

    The ~1,000 year cycle is still increasing and its rate of increase only reduced from about 0.06 deg.C/decade to about 0.05 deg.C/decade in the last 80 years or so. If we are approaching a maximum in a roughly sinusoidal trend for that, we should see such a maximum in that trend by about 2200, roughly 1,000 years after the MWP and 500 years after the LIA. The previous two cycles, however, were a little longer, so the periodicity may be reducing, indicating a possible maximum closer to 2100, though this is not supported by the rate of decrease in the gradient.

    Either way, that maximum in the ~1,000 year cycle should only be about 0.5 to 0.8 deg.C higher than present temperatures for the trend itself, with additional variations for the superimposed 60 year cycle. The latter is expected to rise again between 2028 and 2058 and the cooling since 1998 is just the start of a slight decline in that 60 year cycle until about 2028. After the long-term maximum the world can expect about 500 years of cooling, the next Little Ice Age not coming until then.

  37. Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practice to deceive…

    Great harm is done when untruths are propagated – even in all innocence. Billions wasted on “Global Warming” – a phantasm – merely natural cycles. Billions squandered on the Euro currency – a fiction that all those countries can have the same economic cycle without a unifying government. Great suffering, unjust and penal taxation.

    More Truth, less hubris. Please.

  38. One of my golfing friends describes the Daily Mail as “The Suicide Gazette”, because after you’ve read it that’s often how you feel. Think of it as a necessary right-wing balance against the leftist drivel of the Grauniad (Private Eye’s clever nickname for the Guardian because of the number of spelling mistakes it carries). Much of what the Mail says is true but much also needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Just like the work of Mann & Jones, this story needs to be checked out against the original data.

  39. Rhoda Ramirez says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Careful – the Met is short for the Metropolitan Police Force of London, the Met Office is the weather forecaster, two totally different organizations! I fully agree with your sentiments, however this is a political organization now, run by those with an agenda to change the world into one they wish to see! I dare say they are noble minded, but they are misguided. We have a vast social benefits system in the UK that is dragging the country to its knees, with part of a generation raised on benefits, creating a class that will always vote for those who offer more benefits, just the way they want the world to be, the developing world on subsistance agriculture/production/industry, whilst the world leaders enrich themselves as Orwellian do-gooders! Nature not man rules this planet & the sooner they realise it the better for all of us!

  40. It’s good that this has appeared in the Daily Mail. Although it’s a favourite target of “leftier” papers like the Guardian and Independent, the Mail is widely read in “Middle England”, and has rather more sales than either. The last survey of shrinking newspaper sales I saw, in fact, found that the Mail’s sales are contracting at a rather slower rate than either of the two I just mentioned.

    James Delingpole has a blog article on it, too, here, along with a little follow-up on ‘Dr David Viner – the University of Easy Access climatologist responsible for the most-read-ever story in the Independent when, in 2000, he famously deployed his meteorological expertise to tell us: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”‘. It’s nice that he hasn’t abandoned climate, as he threatened to do.

  41. “Water Scarcity” question:

    Is there any good research on water availability during colder periods?
    Winters can be very dry … and many cold regions are very dry.
    Is there any good data and/or argument in this area?

  42. Joe

    Do you really believe we know the average global temperature back to 1850 to tenths of a degree?

    Are you really worried that we have had three decades of ‘above average’ temperatures based on the belief that we know the global temperature back to 1850?

    tonyb

  43. This may be of some interest to Dr. Ryan Maue
    According to the NOAA’s assessment the Atlantic hurricane activity is directly related to the Equatorial Atlantic’s SST; neither of which is predictable.
    However that not may be the case.
    Comparing the NOAA’s Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index with the ‘Atlantic Hurricane probability index’ based on the North Atlantic other historical data (also available from the NOAA) it could be concluded that the hurricane activity will (on average) stay just above the normal for at least a decade.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AHA.htm

  44. So what is the mechanism that fuels this alarmist media propaganda? The “accepted” solar science has no way of predicting what might happen next year, let alone out to 2100.

    There is absolutely no evidence from “recognized” or pseudo type science that suggests another Maunder type minimum ahead.

    AMP theory which can hindcast the Holocene suggests a weak grand minimum ending after SC25. The plateau of warmth will continue for another 1000 years after that, not withstanding Milankovitch type influences.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/61

  45. [snip . . OTT ]

    I ask, what evidence do you [Gates]have for claiming we have the highest levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O in at least 800,000 years? What’s your authority? Give us links. Put up or shut up.

    Three weeks ago, a certain Steve Jones wrote piece of fluff in the Telegraph entitled “If carbon dioxide isn’t a worry, nitrous oxide could not possibly offer any threat… Right?”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/8989117/If-carbon-dioxide-isnt-a-worry-nitrous-oxide-could-not-possibly-offer-any-threat…-right.html#disqus_thread

    There were plenty of comments refuting the Jones allegations, none of which he answered. Here is my assessment of the article:

    “-a greenhouse gas
    several times more potent than CO2.”

    So bloody what! This Emeritus professor expects us to panic over  N2O (also know as laughing gas), which represents just 0.3 parts per million by volume  {ppmv} or 0.00003%  in our atmosphere? Really?

    We know CO2 is somewhere around 390 ppmv or 0.039%;  that’s 1300 times as much CO2 as N2O in the atmosphere.

    For the purposes of this calculation let us agree that N2O is seven times more potent than CO2, thus  there  would have to be 185 times more N2O present in the atmosphere to match the paltry global warming potential of CO2, a very useful plant food!

    After 100 years of artificial fertiliser manufacture, are we now to believe that less than one third of one part per million by volume of N2O should concern us?

    To return to the sarcastic subtext “climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by charlatans”, I reply “climate always changes and always will”, but it is certainly a charlatan who postulates natural climate change as being CO2 driven or that N2O is a threat. ———————

    To return to my original question to you, about highest levels etc., perhaps I should change it to “ What evidence do you have that these “Highest” levels of gases actually have any effect on global temperatures, up or down and if so does it matter?

    After all, you do travel to warmer & sunnier climes when you go on holiday, don’t you? Why’d you do that if a slightly warmer planet were bad for humans?

  46. Joanna above quotes the statement “According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830.”
    This is now all over the internet.

    Unfortunately the Met Office actually estimated that there was an 8% chance of that occurring , i.e a 92% chance of it NOT occurring!

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research

    Now I doubt if MET are as accurate as that – but at least they do not get it backwards.

  47. Nick in Vancouver said: “Despite spending millions of pounds on AGW the UK is still at the same latitude as Labrador, what gives????”

    The UK isn’t due to be festooned with wind turbines for nothing. They are also propellers. Once we have enough we’re going to put power through them and move south for the winter.

  48. For those having trouble getting the original Met Office page to load, (Over at the talkshop, we have thought of a better use for their supercomputer):

    Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

    23 January 2012 – New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

    Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun’s activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.

    It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).

    Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: “This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun’s output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.

    “It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”

    The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

    Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: “Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st Century.”

    During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a ‘grand maximum’ and recent studies have suggested this level of activity is at or nearing its end.

    Mike Lockwood, an expert in solar studies at the University of Reading, used this as a starting point for looking at the most probable changes in the Sun’s activity over the 21st Century.

    Met Office scientists then placed the projections into one climate model to see how they may impact temperatures.

    Professor Lockwood said: “The 11-year solar cycle of waxing and waning sunspot numbers is perhaps the best known way the Sun changes, but longer term changes in its brightness are more important for possible influences on climate.

    “The most likely scenario is that we’ll see an overall reduction of the Sun’s activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum – or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century – is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun’s past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.”

  49. Very scary situation.
    We know we live in a interglacial and we know it will be a new ice age sooner or later.
    Last glacial period was about 5 C colder than today.
    Despite we have now for more than a century tried to do some geoengineering with releasing wast amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does it seems that CO2 is not potent enough to save us from next ice age. The CO2 warming is not big enough! Hansen et al are wrong.
    Next ice age will kill billions according to Holdren:

    http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112317/

    /Sarc off

  50. Joseph, when they are discussing their list of subjects they should well consider the BENEFITS of a magical molecue which produces more bio growth (green) on less water, on less land every time its abundance within the atmosphere is increased, the very thing these blackbeards wish to have less of, as they should also consider the benefits of inexpensive energy.

    “The fact is that for this summit climate security is the final topic to be discussed:”

    The Financial Crisis (nothing can help the economy like inexpensive energy)
    Food Crisis (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Migration
    Energy Crisis (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy,what energy crisis )
    Water Scarcity (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Biodiversity and Ecosystem loss (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Desertification (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Natural Disasters and the ability to prepare for and recover from them (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy ) wealth enables one to recover, cheep energy, more food etc.
    Achievement of the MDGs
    Globalisation (cheap energy, lots of food can only make all problems easier to solve.)
    Health Security (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Increased resilience at the national and global level (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
    Climate Security // maybe a large misnomer, as it may not exist.

  51. Hmmm, my comment above is not as accurate as I thought – the MET office said the chance of dropping as low as the Maunder minimum is about 8%. The Daily Mail has interpreted this as saying that there is a 92% chance of getting a Dalton-like minimum. I think that is a dubious conclusion – it assumes there are only two possibilities – but it is not as much of a misinterpretation as I first thought.

  52. January’s SIDC SSN is most likely to be around 65 which is down on Nov’s = 96 and Dec’s = 73.
    Dr. Hathaway December ‘prediction’ for SC24 max was just below 100 (see link below), I expect that he will be ‘marching his men’ down the hill again’.
    There no need to remind anyone , even the most casual reader of this blog during last 2-3 years, that low SC24 &SC25 were predicted more than eight years ago, by a simple extrapolation:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm

    None of the methods described here or in any on line available paper or article can match in accuracy the results obtained from equations as quoted in the above link.

  53. Are these really Mike Lockwood’s words?

    “During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a ‘grand maximum’…”

    As Leif tirelessy points out, this is very likely untrue. Lockwood must surely by aware of the work on SSN?

  54. Sounds like the warmists are just preparing the next excuse for the models being wrong. “The Sun is offsetting our warming. You just wait until the Sun gets back to ‘normal’….”. So another 30-40 years added to the time when the models can be shown to be nonsense.

    Meanwhile, I agree with those who say it is silly to counter the warming disaster scenario with a mini ice age disaster scenario. Let’s not have frostbite removing our noses to spite our faces.

    All predictions of future climate should be taken with a grain of salt (or, in the case of a new LIA, many large lorryloads of salt to grit a few roads).

  55. Grimwig says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:13 am
    Whatever else happens, the Thames in London will not freeze – not with massive power stations like Didcot pumping waste heat into it.

    There must be lots of these power stations worldwide dumping waste heat into the water, which makes its way to the sea, warming the oceans a bit. Have the warmists taken this into account? It ought to reduce the warming attributable to CO2.

  56. I’m with R Gates. I think we’ll see continued rising temperatures, but time will tell. If 2011 – 2020 is a lot cooler than 2001 – 2010, I’ll happily say I was wrong. Will the “skeptics”?

  57. It’s important to keep the comment from Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center
    for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute in mind:

    “‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important.”

    There are also a few solar scientists with whom “It will take a long battle to
    convince…” that solar activity (monthly sun spot counts ) used to define
    the Dalton and Maunder minimums is a meaningful harbinger of colder
    tempertures on Earth.

  58. We have a massive disconnect.

    The sun was less active and temperatures fell significantly in the Sporer Minimum.The sun was less active in the Dalton Minimum and temperatures fell by something like 2 deg C. The sun was even less active in the Maunder Minimum and temperatures fell by even more. Yet now they tell us that “the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ ….. This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C“.

    The correct scientific term for statements like that is “BS”.

  59. No problem for the UK, thanks to the Blessed Chris Huhne (Energy Secretary)

    We can attach subsidised heat elements to our tens of thousands of Wind Mills, converting them to fan heaters (should be really warm in the Welsh and Scottish hills). The windmils would be powered by er, um,………….. other Wind Mills, a virtuous circle.

    Who said Huhne does not understand science or engineering?

  60. Nick in Vancouver says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:00 pm
    //////////////////////////////////
    Quite so.

    AND the UK now has had this blast from the past for 4 years in succession. A rare event indeed.

    I bet Viner is regretting that statement.

  61. “Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.”

    This comment absolutely cracks me up. What in God’s name do they think creates weather on this planet in the first place? No Sun = No weather. Sun creates heat, heats up the land, which heats up the air above it. It is very basic meteorology.

  62. For those of you not from the UK, please remember the first rule of UK life:

    ‘If the Daiily Mail says something, it’s because they think it will sell more newspapers and they won’t be sued for libel.’

    The implication of that is that it may be true, it may not be, but the conclusion you must carry in your heart is that if you are a truth seeker, you don’t put Daily Mail citations at the top of your tree of evidence.

  63. The problem I’ve got is how badly they predicted Cycle 24 (and they were sure they were right and it was going to be a strong one). Why do we think they’re going to get 25 right? Could be better, could be much, much worse.

  64. wayne Job says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:01 am
    Seal fur futures may turn out to be a worthwhile investment at this time.

    Unfortunately … Europe and Russia won’t buy any!

  65. Hi DirkH
    Thanks for the link to the JoNova site. I have to agree that after the prolonged minima we have just experienced and sluggish recovery we have seen in 24 the projection doesn’t look good, but would we not be guilty of jumping on the latest round of collective hysteria that our AGW friends have previously fallen for?

    Both are projections. If I was to weigh the likely odds of them being correct I would come down in favour of the Sun is most likely to wane in the coming years.

    What I do know is that our Planet has some wonderful feedback loops built in (I’m thinking Clouds) that stabilise our environment so that life may continue as it has since the Stromatolites first began Photosynthesising over 2.7 Billion years ago

    Seems like only yesterday ;-)

    Dave

  66. Why does anyone bother to expend any energy on Hansen? The man is a fool of the first order, and has zero credibility. All he’s doing is taking up space.

  67. Dave A says:
    January 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////
    Thats my take on it.

    We do not know enough about the sun, nor how it impacts on climate to make any predictions that carry with them high certainty. It is, at this stage, a bit premature, as all the predictions with cycle 24 woud suggest.

    I think that we can be a little bit more certain as to the effect of cooling ocean cycles and what will take place once the Atlantic turns to its cool phase.

    Of course, if the sun does ‘cool’ and if the predictions regarding a sustained period of low solar activity turn out to be correct and if this in turn, for reasons not fully understood, results in cooler temperatures then this will not be welcome since there will be little doubt that the impact on agriculture will be negative and with ever more mouths to feed, this will not be a good thing. Carrying forward high energy costs will only exacerbate the problems.

    As Mr Gates observes, we live in interesting times, although I am quite glad that I have already migrated to warmer climes since there has not been enough global warming in the UK to make life comfortable.

  68. TBear says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:15 am
    ////////////////////////////////

    I agree that some scientists appear rather blinkered and bound to their beliefs (and I use that word deliberately). But this is the point that Mr Gates makes, namely provided that there are no substantial volcano eruptions, we are going to get an opportunity to test the correctness of that assertion.

    I for one doubt that that assetion is correct but in the course of the next 20 to 30 years, we will know better.

  69. Heating and cooling are caused by variations of all wavelengths of the solar energy spectrum. This includes UV which varies as much as 5-10% and effects the temp of the upper atmosphere..
    A sad and true fact is the AWG folks have pulled the wool over many politicians around the world who are still too embarrassed to change course. The cooling will be worse than they think and will be the problem in a very short time-frame.

  70. R. Gates says:

    January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Interesting times ahead for sure. Dalton or Maunder minimum Take 2 versus the highest levels of CO2, methane, and N2O in at least 800,000 years. One thing for certain, one of the groups (warmist or skeptic) will have far fewer members by 2030, but the two psychologically different groups will no doubt have found some totally new topic to squabble about. Probably something to do with civil rights for robots or whether China has the right to claim territorial rights to Mars. This is a most exciting time to be alive!

    Branson Holidays will be doing day trips to Mars using the Higgs Boson drive by then!

  71. The last word about the David Rose, Daily Mail, article should go to the Met Office — seeing as it’s their work which Rose distorted and cherry picked to create yet another of his [Snip. Policy violation. ~dbs, mod.] articles.

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

    Quote: “Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.”

  72. How can the UK MET office possibly predict that the Sun will create 0.08 degrees celsius of global cooling between now and 2100? It is just ludicrous. This is not physics, this is a lab technician inputting figures into a computer program that is based on a trace gas heating theory and publishing the result. They even admit that they have cherry picked the model they used as other models would have given totally different results. Why not publish their predicted energy levels from the sun over that period, then at least people can do some proper physics.

  73. JRWoodman,

    Thanx for the Met office propaganda. But the fact is that there has been no warming since 1997. Stick around here, and you might learn something.

  74. John Brookes,
    Most skeptics are seekers of the truth (with some exceptions), not nearly as narrow minded as many supporters of CAGW. Most are even what would be called luke-warmers, ie agreeing there has been some warming the last 100 or so years, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can potentially cause some warming. They just think no falsifiable evidence has been shown that it is significantly warming above natural variation, and if natural variation tends down, it would likely result in a downward net. Of course they would modify their position based on significant changes in future trends that support the models. They have been skeptical because the facts did not agree with the models.

  75. “…This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C…”

    And, since the HadCRU is only running about .4C above “normal”, we could see a run into the blue for a few years. So if their record goes below -.4C, their “estimate” will be proven wrong.

    Gives us something to look forward to.

    “…However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850…”

    And the period of the LIA was clearly the coldest in the instrumental record using the same data.

    Even if we DON’T see the 2C drop, the current peak will show up as a warmer period in the record. This at a time when CO2 is going up, and proving a point – that some of the warming could have been caused by natural variation.

  76. after a rather cool beginning to summer after a cold and rather wet winter, whats NOT growing is a bit of a worry re food supply, and thats a home garden with the ability to compensate for a lot that farmers couldnt. cooling would be a greater issue I think.

  77. ScuzzaMan says:
    January 30, 2012 at 3:00 am
    ///////////////////////////////////////
    IT is correct that winters can be very dry. I now live in Spain. It was very wet in November, but I do not recall one rainy day in December and we have had only one rainy day in January. So in 2 months, 1 maximum 2 wet days. The forecast is good for the next 10 days and these forecasts are usually fairly accurate, far more accurate than forecasts for the UK. .

    Rain is not a problem for the UK. The South (particularly South East) is already reasonably dry. The main water sources are Scotland, North West England and Wales. All of these are mountainous areas and these mountains catch weather fronts coming off the Atlantic (the dominant wind pattern). Since the geography will not change, there will always be rain in these areas.

    Even if the wind direction were to alter, since the UK is a small island surrounded by water, the wind swept air will always be wet and will eventually meet the mountains and drop its load.

    It is just a question of managing water resource which as far as the UK is concerned should not be that difficult due to its small size and the nature of its geography.

    Drought is over-hyped as far as the UK is concerned.

  78. John Brooks,
    I forgot to add that they are also skeptical due to the exaggerations, outright lies, and bad behavior of the main promoters of CAGW. Al Gore, the hockey stick, climategate 1 and 2 and examination of the limitations of the models are just the tip of the iceburg of problems.

  79. @jimmi_the_dalek
    I am somewhat in the same camp as you. I just wish we could get the straight scoop and have an arbiter who can say for both sides “This is right and this is not” So many spins

  80. Roger Knights says:
    January 30, 2012 at 4:06 am
    Grimwig says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:13 am
    Whatever else happens, the Thames in London will not freeze – not with massive power stations like Didcot pumping waste heat into it.

    There must be lots of these power stations worldwide dumping waste heat into the water, which makes its way to the sea, warming the oceans a bit. Have the warmists taken this into account? It ought to reduce the warming attributable to CO2.

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    See this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093443/Swimming-pensioner-makes-splash-discovering-stretch-English-Channel-stays-warm-year-round.html

    In the overall scheme of things I suspect that the impact is rather small.

  81. A few days ago Dr. Piers Corbyn reported that his webpage had been down. Perhaps his humble laptop was hacked by the gigantic Met Office super-computer and this is the result of that intervention. That´s good news as they would be recognizing how powerful a laptop can be if run by an intelligent human mind.

  82. From the Met Office:
    “It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases”

    It’s a strange thing: when the Sun goes behind the Earth (i.e. at night) the temperature where I live plunges precipitously, even though the concentration of greenhouse gases doesn’t change (except to keep getting ‘worse’, i.e. I keep breathing, people keep driving their cars, burning oil, coal, gas, wood, and etc.).

    Anyone who thinks the sun’s influence is less than the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not really paying attention.

    but what do I know?

    I only live on this planet.

  83. R. Gates, that fencepost must chafe. Both camps make the same mistake. They are overwhelmed by the massive Sun, or scary fossil fuel CO2. Meanwhile Earth’s own intrinsic, chaotic, oscillating, leaky drivers continue their rule over Earth’s temperature trends. These drivers, and these drivers alone, have the energy needed to drive weather patterns away or keep them entrenched over land and sea long enough to show up as trends in the data. No other driver has that energy. Period.

    Want proof? Look at any period marked with a trend (long or short, I don’t care) and find out what the oceanic and atmospheric patterns were like at the time. Find out what the oceans were doing. Find out where the pressure systems were and the jet streams. Find out where the land masses were. Measure the wobble in the tilt of the globe. Each trend has a natural intrinsic explanation. To convince me otherwise, you must show that either the Sun or CO2 can overwhelm these mathematically powerful drivers (come on folks, we are talking about the oceans here and extremely large and powerful pressure systems) of temperature and overwhelm them into a different trend. You can’t do it without significant fudge factors and WAG assumptions.

    Earth rules. The null hypothesis remains.

  84. When I read the Daily Mail article my BS indicator started trembling. After all, what do we really know about solar cycle 25…Well, nothing as yet, as we are still in 24. So, to start predicting Maunder minima on no evidence is a bit OTT. However this is a journalist making up a story from a few facts and a lot of suppositions. Pinch of sea salt (more magnesium…better for you.)

    Then I read the Met Office reposte and my BS indicator wrapped around the top stop, burnt the fuse out and disintegrated before my eyes.

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

    Not journalists like Rose, these are meant to be the scientists!

    1. They keep their OWN temperature record, Hadcrut 3 yet when it suits them they quote Giss etc to prove that 2010 is warmer. So why do we pay for them to do a temperature series if they are not even prepared to stand by it themselves.

    2. There is NO statistically significant difference in 2010 and 1998. Even they have already admitted that. Even the Great professor Jones who must have learnt his statistics playing hopscotch in the junior playground admits that there is no statistically significant warming.

    3. They show a graph that starts in the little ice age to prove it is trending warmer…..Of course it is, idiots, that’s why it was called the little ice age. Do they think we do not understand that a trend line of 150 years does not reverse in 10 years. So of course the “trend” remains upwards even though the temperature has flatlined..

    4. The last decade has been the warmest on record. OF COURSE IT HAS! We are at the top of a warm cycle and it has flat lined. Are we expecting it to suddenly drop by 0.8 of a degree to become the coolest. It is a complete BS statement with no meaning whatsoever. Don’t forget we are talking about the MET OFFICE response not a journalist making up a story..

    .5. “The study found that”. “In addition the study also showed that” They ran ONE model.!!!!!!!

    “It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”

    This isn’t a study, Its a bloody Nintendo game. They start talking about 92% of this and that, then temperature changes to TWO decimal place, as though they sent HG Wells forward in a time machine and measured them not just ran them up on their playstation.

    I am disgusted by this hopelessly unscientific claptrap that I have to pay for. It is no wonder the Met Office are held in such contempt in the UK if weasel words like these are what they substitute for science. Shame on them.

  85. Village Idiot says:
    January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

    Met Office responds (29/1/12):

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

    Sounds like the Met Office has been reading R. Gates and ignoring my “plateau” suggestion.

    According to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ 2010 was the 3rd warmest, see my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878903

    Warmest: 1998, anomaly +0.820°C
    2nd: 2005 +0.747
    3rd: 2010 +0.713

    Should I be looking at some other database?

    11th: 2011 +0.536

  86. Off topic, but interesting read:
    Global Warming vs. Affordable Asthma Inhalers: An Inconvenient Truth

    The forced switch by the FDA to a greener inhaler will basically cost asthmatics between double and triple the cost of the ordinary epinephrine inhalers they currently use.

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/forbidden-table-talk/2012/jan/28/global-warming-verses-affordable-inhalers-truth-ev/

    There sure is gold in that mountain of global warming lies. This is a big issue for 34 million or so Americans asthmatics.

  87. Martin says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:40 am
    The Met Office strikes back
    ———————————————-
    Looks like the Met Office is digging in its heels. Their graph looks convincing – 2000 to 2009 was the warmest ever decade and warmer than 1990-1999. It’s truly head scratching how different groups get such different answers with the same data sets.

  88. Svensmark is interviewed in this Suzuki video “When North Goes South”:

    http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/video.html?ID=1678474875

    I’m told the video is invisible outside of Canada. If so, this needs to get changed immediately.

    Canadians: Contact your MP and demand immediate worldwide access for our devoted comrades, sisters & brothers afield.

    A lot of trouble went into the making of the film.
    A worldwide audience should see the film while it’s fresh.

    Regards.

  89. John Brookes says: January 30, 2012 at 4:10 am

    I’m with R Gates. I think we’ll see continued rising temperatures, but time will tell. If 2011 – 2020 is a lot cooler than 2001 – 2010, I’ll happily say I was wrong. Will the “skeptics”?

    Will the ‘skeptics’?, do what? The skeptics don’t have decades of warming propaganda/predictions to live up to. There is only one side that is funded and pushing an agenda, part of which is the pretense there is an Oil-funded Skeptic front pushing back, but that is part of the propaganda, it doesn’t exist, just like “unprecedented” current climactic events.

  90. This Daily Mail article is good if only because hyperbole about cold is exactly the kind of speculative garbage we see every day about excessive warming. Perhaps between the two speculative extremes people will begin to realize that we really don’t have a clue: up, down, or flat, temperatures could go any direction. I predict that temperatures will continue to drift slowly as they appear to have always done but I won’t say which direction will be prevalent over the next 30 years.

  91. If it does cool to levels where the Thames freezes over it will simply be dismissed as the cooling on the way to a warming world. Anything to keep the scam alive.

  92. How can you trust a model which has cloud as its top layer, all the time, all year round? Where the warming only happens at ground level because they are using data from airports with the sensors behind the parking area of jet airplanes.

    They can’t even input data properly into their models. Thermodynamic calculations using temperatures in Celsius yet the data inputted is in Fahrenheit.

    Most of their newly employed graduates quit after a year because they’ve had enough of bodging models, they don’t want to be part of this big con job.

    It’s gone on for so long now, it’d be impossible to correct the mistakes in the datasets. It’s just one big unauditable mess. No commercial company would get away with handling their datasets in this way.

    The amount of times they invite in global warming scientists in for informal lectures on their ‘research’ and the more cynical employees tear them a new arsehole with their questioning is astounding. It used to be comical, now it’s just embarrassing.

  93. This cooling that is clearly shown in HADCRUT3 is (of course) just a slowing of warming in GISS and BEST. But amateur astronomers have noticed an increase in cloud cover in many places.
    Svensmark led the way!

  94. Jeremy says:
    January 30, 2012 at 6:58 am

    This Daily Mail article is good if only because hyperbole about cold is exactly the kind of speculative garbage we see every day about excessive warming.

    It would be unwise to conflate warming with cooling. Warming was a pleasant walk in the park. ANY Cooling will NOT be a pleasant skate on the pond. Our plant food supply can take warming but any shortening of growing season has a immediate effect on crop yields. Declining food stocks and increasing population WILL collide. Cooling is, and always has been, a real danger. After all, it is the natural state existing for hundreds of thousands of years. So it cannot be regarded as fiction or unlikely. Which generation will have to endure it… is the only real question!

    Our only long term hope is to discover all the real causes of climate cooling and somehow break it’s repeating pattern. Other than that, stockpiling the planet’s food stocks would be prudent. Does anyone think we will be prepared?! GK

  95. While the Daily Mail article is less than scientific (to say the least), the response by the MET office is hilarious. In an obvious attempt to “hide the decline” they use decade average temperatures instead of yearly temps which conveniently hides the downturn. Their credibility continues to plummet.

  96. They have this single minded focus that any activity in the sun cannot offset the warming, that they have not proven, caused by the advancement of mankind. If they were invested in the Titanic and on its maiden voyage they would have gone down with the ship proclaiming it was not sinking.

    Their statement: “because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.”

  97. UK Met office paper:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research

    I cannot find a met office paper that states “the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years” but they did release the annual temperature number for 2012 that shows it was cooler than 1997, which is probably what the Mail is getting at. You can say anything you like with temperature data. Depending on how you look at it 2011 was either;
    1. The 12th warmest year since 1850 or;
    2. The second coldest year this century

    If you read the Guardian you would quote the former or if you read the Mail you would quote the latter. Personally I think temperatures probably are on a downward track for a while as the trend is clearly topping out:

    And this is leading to a slowing rate of sea level rise:

  98. Tip for serious Climate Scientists looking to gain the inside track…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_distribution
    CD has no mean, no variance, & no higher moments.

    “The Cauchy distribution is an infinitely divisible probability distribution. It is also a strictly stable distribution.”

    “Like all stable distributions, the location-scale family to which the Cauchy distribution belongs is closed under linear transformations with real coefficients. In addition, the Cauchy distribution is the only univariate distribution which is closed under linear fractional transformations with real coefficients. […] In this connection, see also McCullagh’s parametrization of the Cauchy distributions.”

    More details on superior data exploration utility at a later date…

  99. R. Gates says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    “… the two psychologically different groups will no doubt have found some totally new topic to squabble about.”

    So that’s behind the argument? You are psychologically different?

  100. Remember the constant drip, drip, drip feeding into all our brains by the warmists & the Met Office.UEA, et al:-

    Extract from Meinkampf, Adolf Hilter.

    Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. …
    Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

    I suspect this is posted up on Bob Ward’s notice board;-))

  101. Rosco says:
    January 30, 2012 at 1:58 am

    As I recall from organic chemistry, CO2 is in the lowest energy state and can’t lose any more. I don’t know what the energy of a molecule of CO2 would be after it absorbed a photon *BUT* I cannot believe that the recently excited molecule isn’t ready to lose the additional energy as soon as it receives it. What purpose would be served by retaining the additional energy? I would think it possible to construct a lab experiment to measure this phenomena.

  102. Re: Alan the Brit says:
    January 30, 2012 at 8:10 am

    And this is an excellent example of the type of propaganda the UK Met Office pushes out

    MET OFFICE WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS

    “It’s now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term.”
    “It’s a problem we all share, because every single country will be affected. Together, today, we must take action to adapt to it and stop it — or, at least, slow it down.”

    “What will happen if we don’t reduce emissions?
    If emissions continue to grow at present rates, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is likely to reach twice pre-industrial levels by around 2050. Unless we limit emissions, global temperature could rise as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial temperature by the end of the century and push many of the world’s great ecosystems (such as coral reefs and rainforests) to irreversible decline.
    Even if global temperatures rise by only2 °C it would mean that 20–30% of species could face extinction. We can expect to see serious effects on our environment, food and water supplies, and health.”

    “Are computer models reliable?
    Yes. Computer models are an essential tool in understanding how the climate will respond to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and other external effects, such as solar output and volcanoes.
    Computer models are the only reliable way to predict changes in climate. Their reliability is tested by seeing if they are able to reproduce the past climate, which gives scientists confidence that they can also predict the future.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/a/quick_guide.pdf

  103. Piers Corbyn wrote on a prior Solar thread here the following. No one commented on it and so repeat the main point of his which is that the debate is about ODD V. Regular solar cycles. He does not, if i’m not mistaken, idenity the mysterious ‘WUWT’s Force X’ which is the link between the Sun (and it’s output) and the earth and it’s atmosphere and i’m adding: it’s magnetic core.

    ‘…………………………………Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
    January 25, 2012 at 9:13 pm
    THIS confirms the view we and others expressed two years ago (and Timo Niroma years before that) and have since re-expressed, although maybe it is a bit ‘OTT’ (or perhaps one should say UTB – Under The Bottom on this). A Russian associate, Kirill Kuzanyan eg has also (mid-last year) suggested a low solar cycle 25.
    It is ODD CYCLES (and odd cycles pretty well only) which control long term world average temperatures (nothing to do with CO2, Cosmic Rays to any extent or as far as we can see to any extent EVEN cycles) so this is an important projection…………………………….’

  104. Basically then, the earth is still warming, but we don’t notice it as much since it’s getting colder.

  105. John Brookes says:
    January 30, 2012 at 4:10 am
    . . . continued rising temperatures . . .

    That’s not the issue.
    Calculating some strange average to 3 or 4 digits to the right of the decimal point is a waste of time. It would be much better to look for a reasonable answer to the right question than an ever more precise answer to a question that is irrelevant.

    A better comment about skeptics is from Joanne Nova: “Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming.”
    You might want to read her booklet:

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

  106. R. Gates says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    “Interesting times ahead for sure. Dalton or Maunder minimum Take 2 versus the highest levels of CO2, methane, and N2O in at least 800,000 years.”

    Gates;
    Page 3;

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

    238 000 years ago; 280 ppm. No runaway. Temperature not increasing. But most importantly; CO2 lagging temperature 800 years.
    Have you read it? Should calm you down regarding your fears regarding CO2. Can you explain why temperatures are going down, then CO2, 800 years later? Tells me one thing; Temperature controlling CO2 levels through outgassing from oceans. Not opposite.

    Luckily the CO2 level came up again. Thanks to Henry’s law, me thinks.

    I think it was Smokey that first showed me this link.

    Callion et. al., Fisher et al, Petit et al are all behind Science mag.s paywall.
    I have access, but unfortunately you need to go through a process to get it.

  107. This just proves that the sun never ended the debate when told and neither did the PDO or the AMO.

  108. R Gates says,
    “…One thing for certain, one of the groups (warmist or skeptic) will have far fewer members by 2030″

    R Gates you are, “our troll.” Don’t you know you are on the road to Damascus? We are getting ready to receive you into fellowship. The day is soon coming (way before 2030) when you are going to tell us… “In beholding I have become changed” Can’t you see it coming? You aren’t a true believer anymore. But, don’t worry… I’m sure we will find something else to argue about.

  109. With perfect timing Richard Black at the BBC is sending his readers to to a “spoiler” from both his Twitter account and the BBC news science page.

    The little ice age was triggered by volcanism and then sustained by ice and ocean feedbacks. Nowt to do with the Sun and the researchers even set it at a constant level in their “models”.

    https://www2.ucar.edu/news/6338/study-may-answer-longstanding-questions-about-little-ice-age

  110. pennlion says:
    January 30, 2012 at 5:21 am

    Heating and cooling are caused by variations of all wavelengths of the solar energy spectrum. This includes UV which varies as much as 5-10% and effects the temp of the upper atmosphere.

    UV actually varies over the solar cycle by much greater margins depending on the wavelength. EUV (100%) FUV (30%) and MUV by (1%).

    The solar chemical effects on atmosphere and climate are well known.

    http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236

  111. Richard Black: “Little Ice Age caused by volcanoes, sustained by ice and ocean feedbacks”

    One wonders what Richard Black thinks the volcanoes are doing. Let me explain it to him. They eject particulates that block the Sun’s energy from reaching the Earth. OMG, there’s that “Sun” word that all alarmists hate.

    Also, was the LIA the only time that volcanoes have erupted in the Holocene? Why was no other period as cool? Well, wouldn’t want to hurt poor Richard’s head so we better not ask.

  112. Yes Zac (9.20) here’ some of Black’s pixie dust on the BBC:-
    “When the researchers plugged in the sequence of eruptions into a computer model of climate, they found that the short but intense burst of cooling was enough to initiate growth of summer ice sheets around the Arctic Ocean, as well as glaciers.
    The extra ice in turn reflected more solar radiation back into space, and weakened the Atlantic ocean circulation commonly known as the Gulf Stream.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16797075

  113. Another Gareth — Ha ha, perfect, fire up the nukes, run the current backwards, next stop Bermuda (still British right?) I see it all and here I was sceptical of Huhne, I didn’t realise he was a genius. Now I see why the SNP want to build so many windmills. They want to snap Scotland off and get there first.

  114. The precautionary principle should now tell us to abondon global warming and pump as many CO2 into the air as we can.

  115. Confused, how does a volcano pumping S02 “cool” while CO2 “warms”, is it the dark ash? Does it have a significant enough aloft time in the atmosphere to effect climate versus weather.

  116. joe says:
    January 30, 2012 at 12:58 am

    The people who commented here are the composites of horror movie characters. Bluster and disdain while things are calm. Contempt for those who can think ahead for more than twenty minutes. When disaster strikes. The tough guy in calm times turns into a panicked child and it’s every man for himself. Parents depriving their children of food because it is short supply and too expensive. Starving the next generation to death to save them selves a few bucks as a downpayment on their future of dispair. Keeping taxes low by denying our irresponsible behaviour is having a detrmental impact on the earth and our quality of life is like saving money on our medical bills by denying we have cancer. All that we saved in denial can never be spent after we are dead, but we keep on denying and we keep dying in misery.

    Oh, I know. Just awful, isn’t it.
    /sarc

  117. Village Idiot says:
    January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

    Met Office responds (29/1/12):

    “This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading”.

    “However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

    Not according to Phil Jones, (Jan 2012) for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Time to remember,

    [video src="http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view&current=jones1_Join_to_AVI_1-1.mp4" /]

  118. Continuing to do the wrong things now has the potential of desaster for mankind.

    What will this mean for scientists, who produced those errorneous climate reconstructions and did not retract them, for those at IPCC who exclude solar science from AR5 and also misrepresent the disturbing and increasing gap between models and measurements ?

  119. Alan Millar said:

    “I wonder what the reaction will be of the warmists, if we get to 2016 with no new unambiguous record? Anybody think that they may suddenly decide that a 95% confidence level is no big deal in science anyway? Or perhaps GISS will suddenly discover, after a few adjustments, that 1998 wasn’t that hot after all!

    So Mr Gates et al what are your current confidence level that temperatures are going to end up where the models predict?”
    ____

    I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see at least one new instrument record setting warm year in the next 4 (2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015). I base this on the fact that the underlying forcing from the additional anthropogenic greenhouse gases is still present, and it is highly likely that we’ll see at least a moderate El Nino around the same time as Solar Max 24. When natural variability aligns with greenhouse forcing, records are broken.

    After that, I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see global temperatures at least 2C to 3C warmer than they are now by the time CO2 levels have reached 560 ppm, with continued warming after that until equilbrium temperature is reached (assuming the CO2 levels stopped somehow at 560 ppm).

  120. I can see it coming. When they finally get around to admitting that it is the sun’s fault that temperatures are falling they will be telling us that it would be much colder were it not for the CO2, which will fry us in time to come. As my old father used to say, ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’.

  121. The way I read the Warmer Input to the article was: “CO2 …… Prevents ICE AGE”, “Next Solar Max will …….. Cook Humanity Due to CO2″

    COO-OCD . . the next Psychiatric disorder discovery.

  122. noaaprogrammer says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    To the extent that the proponents of AGW are also interested in the controls they think are necessary to tax and bend humanity to their whims, let’s not let them jump off the warming wagon and onto the cooling wagon to continue their need to control.

    It would be amusing to see the suggested “cooling control” measures. Maximize CO2 output? Heh.

  123. Pamela Gray says:
    January 30, 2012 at 6:04 am
    It is still all due to the sun. The source of all the energy driving the weather and currents and warming the oceans is the sunn.

    Lovely little lady isn’t she?

    Cheers

  124. R. Gates says:
    January 30, 2012 at 11:14 am
    So after perusing the article and the link, basically liberals can’t stay committed and focused but are more “adaptable”. It sounds to me like they are more easily led astray by what sounds good and feels good, not able to stay focused and committed to core ideals and beliefs.

    They try to say more liberated in their thinking, which sounds better.
    Interesting. I guess that means it isn’t their fault they are liberals, they are wired that way. Fits right in with their “It isn’t your fault” ideology that never assigns responsibility to wrong doers. In short, liberals have brain damage. Thanks, it wil help me understand my lefty friends better..

  125. R. Gates says:
    January 30, 2012 at 11:28 am
    “”I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see at least one new instrument record setting warm year in the next 4 (2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015). I base this on the fact that the underlying forcing from the additional anthropogenic greenhouse gases is still present, and it is highly likely that we’ll see at least a moderate El Nino around the same time as Solar Max 24. When natural variability aligns with greenhouse forcing, records are broken.””

    This blog is becoming a fiction writers paradise.

  126. I think people are running ahead of themselves a little here. If the past is any guide to the future (and so far, things are going about as could be expected), we can expect about 0.4 K of a drop as a result of PDO/AMO shift, and possibly 0.2K of a drop as a result of lower solar output for a total of around 0.6K by around 2030-40, which will still leave us slightly warmer than the ’70s. We’ll then warm to just over 1998 by 2070 and finish the century out about where we started it. Caveat emptor – this is purely from wiggle-watching

    Last century we had 2 warm phases and one cold, this century it will be 2 cold phases and one warm. There is every likelihood that we will continue warming at this rate until around 2200, at which point we will most likely decline into the next “Little Ice Age” in 2800, a problem our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren will have to worry about. And no amount of CO2 is going to help them.

  127. Ezra Klein’s “Wonkblog” at the Washington Post featured the Warmist view of this story in this editorial. The author relied on SkepSci to deepen his ignorance of the subject matter… LOL!

    I posted this comment (as TexGeo)…

    “The trick here is to cherry-pick numbers and start from the exceptionally hot El Niño year… Meanwhile, as the Met Office notes, the 2000s were clearly the hottest decade in the instrumental record…”

    How long is the “instrumental record”? About 150 years long… With the first 100 being kind of noisy.

    How long has the Earth been in its current interglacial stage (AKA the Holocene)? About 10,000 years.

    How does the current warming compare to previous Holocene warm periods? It is not anomalous in any way, shape, fashion or form. “Goldilocks-picking” is no better than “cherry-picking”.

  128. So to tally the knowledge base:

    a) GMT not increasing significantly or is slightly decreasing in last 15 years

    b) The CAGW’s CO2 increased significantly in last 15 years according to IPCC centric scientists

    c) Unexceptional TSI and SSI variation in the last 15 years

    d) The last 15 years of climate had a natural variation (with man’s influence included) which is consistent with the natural variation of the last +1000 years
    e) At the time of the greatest flourishing of life on earth the CO2 levels were up to 9 times greater than they have been for the last 15 years

    f) Ice core data show CO2 levels lag temperature levels by ~800 years

    Summary: Un-alarming

    O Hansen, Hansen, wherefore art thou alarmist? [apologies to Shakespeare]

    John

  129. MAtthew Epp says: “In short, liberals have brain damage.”

    I’ve made the claim it is genetic. The inability to be honest. All thought is driven by insatiable self serving drive regardless of truth. For normal folks it is obvious who they are. The fall for the same old ages long entrapment’s.

  130. R. Gates says:

    I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see at least one new instrument record setting warm year in the next 4 (2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015).

    Claims of confidence are cheap. How much are you willing to lose, if you are wrong?

    When natural variability aligns with greenhouse forcing, records are broken.

    When natural variability aligns with a natural peak in trend, or a flattening of a natural upward trend, or the beginning of a downturn in a natural trend, records are broken. A new record means nothing wrt to the current state of the trend, the future state of the trend, or the cause of the trend. This, of course, is why you fixate on such things. It is another sypmtom of the same disease that renders you incapable of correctly interpreting “flattening”.

    Why don’t you try some confidence building on some metric that might actually be diagnostic wrt the accuracy of your worldview?

  131. Ric Werme says:
    January 30, 2012 at 6:23 am

    According to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ 2010 was the 3rd warmest, see my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878903

    Warmest: 1998, anomaly +0.820°C
    2nd: 2005 +0.747
    3rd: 2010 +0.713

    Should I be looking at some other database?

    11th: 2011 +0.536

    Here is the table from the Met Office 2012 annual global temperature forecast

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast

    This table provides the top 12 rankings for all three datasets and includes Jan to Oct 2011:
    Rank HadCRUT3 NOAA NCDC NASA GISS WMO Average
    Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *
    1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56 2010 0.53
    2 2010 0.50 2005 0.52 2005 0.55 2005 0.52
    3 2005 0.47 1998 0.50 2007 0.51 1998 0.51
    4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.50 2003 0.47
    5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49 2002 0.47
    6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49 2009 0.47
    7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48 2006 0.45
    8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48 2007 0.45
    9 2007 0.40 2004 0.45 2011 0.45 2004 0.43
    10 2001 0.40 2001 0.42 2004 0.41 2001 0.41
    11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.40 2011 0.41
    12 1997 0.36 2008 0.38 2008 0.37 2008 0.36
    * Anomaly: °C above long-term average of 14.0 °C.

    Here is HADCRUT3v:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

    1997 0.349
    1998 0.529
    1999 0.304
    2000 0.278
    2001 0.407
    2002 0.455
    2003 0.467
    2004 0.444
    2005 0.474
    2006 0.425
    2007 0.397
    2008 0.329
    2009 0.436
    2010 0.470
    2011 0.342

    Here is HADCRUT3:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    1997 0.352
    1998 0.548
    1999 0.297
    2000 0.271
    2001 0.408
    2002 0.465
    2003 0.475
    2004 0.447
    2005 0.482
    2006 0.425
    2007 0.402
    2008 0.325
    2009 0.443
    2010 0.478
    2011 0.340

    Here is HADCRUT3v sorted:

    1998 0.529
    2005 0.474
    2010 0.470
    2003 0.467
    2002 0.455
    2004 0.444
    2009 0.436
    2006 0.425
    2001 0.407
    2007 0.397
    1997 0.349
    2011 0.342
    2008 0.329
    1999 0.304
    2000 0.278

    Here is HADCRUT3 sorted:

    1998 0.548
    2005 0.482
    2010 0.478
    2003 0.475
    2002 0.465
    2004 0.447
    2009 0.443
    2006 0.425
    2001 0.408
    2007 0.402
    1997 0.352
    2011 0.340
    2008 0.325
    1999 0.297
    2000 0.271

    Where did the Met Ofice get their data for the table in the 2012 forecast?

    Where have I gone wrong? Neither HADCRUT3 nor HADCRUT3v matches the order ascribed to HADCRUT3 in the Met Office 2012 forecast table.

    WUWT?

  132. According to Judith Lean, the celebrated, and million times quoted solar scientist, the
    temps in 2014, made as solid honest forecast, is + 0.14 C in temp increase over 2010…..
    and she has all the Suncycles 24, 23, 25 etc. pp. integrated in her work……
    An honest AWG-forecast…..let’s see how she will fare……
    in any case, no new ice age on the horizon….we will have to adapt global
    temps to forecasts and not the other way around…..
    ……if HadCRUT4 does not provide enough warming….. lets work on HadCRUT5,
    and chase warm spots and locations…., you will see, the 0.14 C will be
    substantiated….by the Metoffice…..

  133. The global cooling articles actually started up in 2007 – at least, I’ve been tracking it since then. The media has been hyping climate change for over 100 years – the NY Times warned of an upcoming ice age in 1895 – and it switches from warming to cooling every few decades. It’s a bit easier to catch them at it now, thanks to the internet.

  134. ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

    Looks like for the IPCC and their friends, the world ends in 2015, not in 2012.

  135. meemoe_uk says:
    “Hi noaaprogrammer,
    If you really are a computer programmer working for NOAA, will you create a time series chart based on the data at …”
    Sorry. I quit programming for NOAA back in the 1970s to teach computer science. I should probably change my handle to 4merNOAAprogramer.

  136. Quite so.

    AND the UK now has had this blast from the past for 4 years in succession. A rare event indeed.

    I bet Viner is regretting that statement.

    Regret comes from an empty head and a big mouth.

  137. I am 100% positive I remember reading a statement on RC by Gavin hisself circa ~2007 that stated if there is no warming for at least 10 years, then that would falsify the models. Since we’re 15 years in now, I wonder what his reaction is…

  138. R. Gates,
    Something is seriously wrong, because I find myself agreeing with almost everything that you wrote in you first comment on this post.
    The only bit that I disagree with was your second line, when you spoke about the so called effects of the so called greenhouse gases.
    Apart from that, I do agree that one side will have far less backers by the 2030’s, while the other, larger side will be busy trying to keep warm.
    How’s that for an attempt at evenhandedness?
    Not bad eh? /Jokeing off.

    Now I base the above, not on the expectation that solar events will cool the earth.
    I bas it solely on a simple projection, which I carried out several years ago.
    I merely projected the normal 60 year cycle in the global temperature which shows that the temperature will be noticably down by 2030 and will not regain the present level until after 2050.

    However, if all the talk of major solar minimums comes to pass, then it will be far, far worse, I’m afraid.
    A large minority of the population of the globe will starve to death.

    So my upside, happy vision is for damn cold, unpleasant weather.
    My system is muvkimh up so I can’t read this to check my spelling.
    That is a real disaster.

  139. Fortunately the cooling will not all happen over-night. There is long latency in the oceans which cover the globe (70%) so the change will be gradual. We will be able to covert the bogus ethanol fuel process back to vodka for a period before the growing lands get covered by snow during summer. It is sad that so many will be short of food and out of vodka until the true cooling trend scares the politicals into changing course.

  140. I wish that first chart went back to the 1600’s and showed the Maunder Minimum too. The contrast would be even more dramatic.

  141. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    January 30, 2012 at 1:08 am

    and here is what the Met Office says : http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
    ==============
    This comment on the MET Office article sums it up nicely.

    Simon Cooper (11:47:24) :
    What’s the matter with your command of the English language? There is a difference between warm (values) and warming (a trend). The last 10 years may have been warm, but there has been no warming trend. That is what people are talking about all over the world. No warming for 15 years. That’s accurate – until you produce HadCrut v4 with its new Arctic stations (no cherrypicking there then).

    As for your models saying CO2 trumps the Sun, well, we’ll see. Your models and predictions so far have a batting average of 0.

  142. AusieDan says:
    January 31, 2012 at 4:10 am
    R. Gates,
    Something is seriously wrong, because I find myself agreeing with almost everything that you wrote in you first comment on this post.

    ____
    Nothing wrong mate. I’m a very reasonable person, greatly and unfairly maligned by some.

    ______

    James Allison says:
    January 30, 2012 at 1:04 am
    R. Gates says:
    January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Gates Your current fence sitting will likely lose you the status of WUWt’s most favourite troll. Please don’t turn. There aren’t many like you left.

    ____
    I guess if you’re going to be a “troll” then it is best to be a favorite sort of one. As far as fence sitting, let me be clear:

    I believe it is more likely than not that:

    1) The buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is warming the climate (and causing climate change and climate disruption along the way).
    2) It is highly likely we’ll see new at least one new instrument record in the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 as natural variations align with underlying forcing from increased greenhouse gases.
    3) Any cooling from a new Dalton or Maunder Minimum is likely to be offset by the continued warming from greenhouse gases.
    4) If we get a long period of cooling (like some skeptics believe might happen), and this lasts until 2030 or later, then by 2030 at the latest I’d probably no longer be a “warmist” and would become skeptical of AGW. I wonder how many AGW skeptics have an actual condition whereby they’d become a warmist?

  143. re post: Richard M says: January 30, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Richard Black: “Little Ice Age caused by volcanoes, sustained by ice and ocean feedbacks”…Also, was the LIA the only time that volcanoes have erupted in the Holocene? Why was no other period as cool? Well, wouldn’t want to hurt poor Richard’s head so we better not ask

    Actually there is some serious thought that the Dark Ages famines, disease, wars, etc., (including low temps) were triggered by an major caldera eruption of proto-Krakatoa around the year 535.

    http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm

    I include the following article only because it lays out some of the major effects world wide during the time period, and I don’t have time to search out a better piece. It places the eruptions somewhere in Central/South America, but I’m fairly sure the ash has been traced to Krakatoa and the C/S Am. idea overturned. http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Anyhow, anyone who is interested can search out info themselves.

  144. R. Gates says:

    I believe it is more likely than not that:

    1) The buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is warming the climate (and causing climate change and climate disruption along the way).

    You hold this belief against evidence. The climate is not warming.

    2) It is highly likely we’ll see new at least one new instrument record in the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 as natural variations align with underlying forcing from increased greenhouse gases.

    Once again, global surface temps are currently flat, and have been for about fifteen years. Variability about that flat trend would be expected to periodically produce a “new record” against that relatively short (wrt to “records”) timespan. No “alignment” or “forcing” or “green house gasses” are necessary for that to happen. Thus if a new record should occur, that fact alone would mean absolutely nothing with respect to the existance of warming, or to any alleged cause for that unnecessarily concluded warming.

    3) Any cooling from a new Dalton or Maunder Minimum is likely to be offset by the continued warming from greenhouse gases.

    See #2. What is not happening cannot be said to be continuing.

    4) If we get a long period of cooling (like some skeptics believe might happen), and this lasts until 2030 or later, then by 2030 at the latest I’d probably no longer be a “warmist” and would become skeptical of AGW.

    So, in order for you to give up belief in unnatural, catastrophic warming, you would have to see 30 years of cooling? Ben Santer’s seventeen years of less-than-model-predicted warming wouldn’t do it for ya, huh? Thirty years of dead flat temps, and you will still be seeing warming?

    Recapping:

    You see warming where there is none. You interpret things like “new records” as evidence of warming when that is not the case. The only way you will give up the notion of warming, is to see a period of cooling about twice as long as the most recent period of warming.

    You may wish to re-examine your faith commitment.

  145. 65 below in the interior valleys of Alaska is right in line with the 70 below in the Yukon in 2009, and let’s not forget the Antarctic blast that got loose in 2010 that crossed the equator. There’s a definate decline going on. And, once again, the Sun is back to very low activity.
    I’d say it’s the start of another round of Mini Ice Age. Remember to tell your grandkids about the good old days…the warmer period.
    The only question now is: How cold will it get and how long will it last?

  146. R Gates,
    it seems your grasp on sarcasm is no stronger than your grasp on scientific truth, everyone on here can see you are a “Team” player and your efforts to ensure you get your little paragraph of equilibrium rantings on every single thread, is trolling plain and simple, and quite frankly I would not put up with your behavior or that of others, though I applaud Anthony and the WUWT crew for their patience and anti-censorship stance.
    You have science back to front, as do many CAGW faithful, the onus of proof is on the creator of the hypothesis, not the rest of the world, and merely one piece of evidence refuting the hypothesis renders it void, 30 years of cooling to prove otherwise? Are you kidding? Even the “Team” would have long walked away. As a reader of WUWT you have been provided the tools to thoroughly debunk CAGW, yet you ignore them. 30 years of data EXACTLY matching predictions of CAGW is what is required as a minimum to PROVE CAGW exists, any deviation is proof the model is wrong, do I need to fill in the blanks? I have better things to do that write you a summarized version of this blog and the tens of thousands of pages of proof CAGW is fraud. Bring us HARD data, irrefutable proof, no models, guesses, predictions, projections, gut feelings, Hansenisms, diversions, mistruths, tree rings, Mannthamatics, adjustments, or visions inspired by your fairy godmother, and I am sure I can speak for everyone when I say we will listen, until then how about being a nice chap and sitting out your 30 years quietly in the corner?

  147. BB says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-881302

    True. I am sure R.Gates and A.Physicist are on someone’s payroll to come here and leave remarks, on every post at WUWT, that are supposed to make us think that our (sceptic) view is just a tiny majority. If you engage them showing some real research, like I did here,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#comment-878388

    they will never challenge such research.
    But on the next post you will note that they are back again, happily trolling along. I suppose if you get paid for it, you would also be happy to do the same?

  148. R. Gates says:
    January 31, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Mr R Gates. I have it on very good authority that enlightenment is upon us. Be careful where you tread Sir, you may very well have placed yourself on some very tender ground.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

  149. Again, temp graphs with only the upper temperature “dots” are somewhat worthless. Given in the US there were two dozen double record days. That is, days in which both the hottest and coldest records were broken. So, were these days hotter or colder? Like a blond joke, no one knows.
    It could have been a very hot day, then chilled down a lot during the very last minute. Boom!
    Both records broken in the same day. Or, it might have been a very cold day, then became record hot in the last hour. So, mostly a colder day. See what I mean! What is needed is to show the complete range of temps for the time period in question. Use FDDs and HDDs, Freezing Degree Days and Heating Degree Days. This tells you how much winter oil to burn and how much air conditioning you will need. This tells you whether it is really warmer or colder. If your winter heating bills are going down and your air conditioning bills are skyrocketing: it’s Global Warming.

  150. I live in Poland.

    Man, am I glad we found all this natural gas. Any bets on whether they will ban fracking in Europe?

Comments are closed.