From Australia’s Canberra Times:
NSW Treasurer Michael Costa is understood to be among a small group of Australian politicians and other opinion-shapers to embrace this notion.
It is wise to be sceptical of many Russian scientists and all politicians, so I have given this ”solar forcing” explanation of global warming little credence until I attended a forum at the Academy of Science earlier this year and heard it from a scientist of undoubted integrity and expertise in this area. A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.
McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.
But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ”soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.
”The reduced ‘forcing’ might compensate, or over-compensate, for the effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases,” he said. ”It is likely that there will be a cessation of around 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more.”
I put this to Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, whose overarching judgment is that the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions is an increasingly dominant factor on global temperature to the extent that it will not be slowed by lower solar activity.
After an email conversation, Jones said he and McCracken are in general agreement but differ on emphasis and one key judgment. ”Natural solar variability is potentially important, but the climate history and physics tell us that the probability of this factor sufficiently cooling the planet to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect is distinctly remote,” Jones wrote.
The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought, raising the urgency of calls from climate scientists for political action to reduce emissions. Yet any uncertainty over the sun’s influence creates a lever that climate sceptics and developing nations will seize upon to stall such action.
If McCracken is wrong and temperatures continue to climb during a decade or two of low solar activity, the need for emissions reductions will be dramatically reinforced.
However, if temperatures do not rise over this period, steeling the political will for such action by all nations will be much more difficult.
The dilemma for the science sector is a classic: how to communicate uncertainty.
As McCracken rightly observed in 2005, a lull in temperature rises would provide a wonderful opportunity for political and technological effort to gain the initiative in the fight against climate change by turning global emissions around and thus hopefully avoid worst-case warming scenarios when the sun’s fires stoke up again mid-century.
But he also noted the risk that mainstream climate science, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would be seen by its critics and others to have been ill-informed at best or misleading at worst, diminishing its credibility and eroding political commitment to emission reductions.
McCracken believes science should be upfront. ”I believe that we must state firmly that a cooling is possible in the near future, but that the warming would then resume 10-20 years hence,” he said via email. ”It will be very hard to argue for public trust if we say nothing about the possibility, and then try to argue our way out after it happens. Using an Aussie rules analogy, that would be like giving the climate sceptics a free kick 10m in front of goal.”
Australia is definitely entering a footy finals period, and the Earth may be entering a period where human-induced global warming slows temporarily. Many scientists will not be comfortable to consider this possibility, and even less comfortable that journalists canvas it, because in good faith they want nothing to deflect efforts to combat global warming.
However, I have always aimed to tell readers what they deserve to know, not what they may want to hear or what governments, scientists or interest groups would prefer they were told. This has earned me brickbats and bouquets over the years, as it should do, and as I expect it will on this occasion.
Simon Grose is Canberra correspondent for Science Media.
www.sciencemedia.com.au
David Corcoran (00:54:25) :
“One really harsh winter with global temps back to 1970s levels will end this fraud.”
Test of your theory coming soon (in my opinion).
1970’s-style winter coming right up.
Slightly off topic – well quite a way off topic – but has anyone else had a look at this?
http://www.globalweathercycles.com/
“New research findings released in the peer reviewed book “Global Warming — Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found,” links seven different types of recurring gravitational cycles as the cause for all 2200 global warming events during the past half million years, including the earth’s current warming cycle. It also links the cycles to a natural 50 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 10,000 year period leading up to the peak of all recurring 116,000 year mega global warming cycles.”
Just wondering if anyone has had a peek at the e-book and can offer any insight.
—-
John Bunt (07:33:16) :
The AGW crowd has recently gone hyper since the warming has clearly stalled….
—-
The AGW Alarmist crowd is acting just like a Business that is “Going out of Business”.
We all have seen this. As the Business gets closer to the day they really close the doors they keep increasing their price reductions. First 10 percent off then 20, soon it is 40 and then 80 percent. Each price reduction is more extreme then the previous.
As each period gets cooler and as we get closer and closer to undeniable Global Cooling trends and statistics and the AGW Alarmist are making more and more extreme “It is the End of the World” statements.
I just love it.
Let the AGW “Going out of Business” statements begin.
Love and Kisses
Serenity now………….
Did anyone find “The main point of disagreement was McCracken’s view that the rate of global warming could be eased or reduced by a fall in solar activity. ”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.”
Instead of waiting for a model to show you the way Jones, why not look at the empirical data.
IMO, when you rely on models alone, you rarely find truth only fear.
Leif:
As McCracken is a good friend of yours, it would be FANTASTIC if he joined this thread. I, for one, would love to hear from the horse’s mouth. Personally, I’ve lost all trust of the MSM on this matter. If he’s happily retired, I understand.
Best Regards,
I think that if fusion (ITER) works in the next twenty years, it will provide reliable safe and easily accessible to all energy and excess carbon will be history.
In addition in twenty years alternative energy sources can be developed to the same effect, without destroying the economic fabric of the west ( the east will be burning merrily) with hot air selling schemes that will only throw the third world into more poverty. The third world is mostly dictatorships who will happily sell their carbon credits selling the right to developement for their people.
Assuming that the serious scientists in the AGW side want an out, a hiatus of twenty or thirty years is enough . So the serious scientists on the AGW side should join the serious skeptics in saying to governments: hold your horses on carbon trading, it may not be needed and we still have time ahead of us.
Developing alternative energies and fusion are worthy goals and the money should go full force there instead of in buying hot air. This, regardless of whether CO2 is the culprit or not. The goal of saving the economies should be common.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard (00:28:31)
Thank you. The ad hominem’s are tiring to read no matter which side of the debate they’re coming from. I would like to think that the AGW dissenters have enough science behind us that ad hom comments are unnecessary, since they’re usually the last line of defense when all other arguments fail. I don’t believe the skeptic arguments have even been adequately addressed yet, much less failed to the point of resorting to personal taunting of people many of us have never heard of before now.
I don’t know much about him but remarks like his, cautious though they are, add to the growing chorus of dissent and they are much appreciated.
“Global temperatures are PROBABLY rising faster than previously thought” and “I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this”
Is that a scientific term: PROBABLY? The temp is rising or it is not. Prove it with science and/or a reference. With the AGW crowd good science is improbable.
http://improbable.com/
Those quotes are from Jones, not McCracken.
Misunderstood, I’ll read it again, thanks.
If UHI is responsible for say for 50 percent or more of the perceived increase in ground based temps from the early 1900`s, when did this effect end, UHI can only cause that perceived rise if significant urban development is continuously occurring around the measuring stations. Is significant urban development still occurring in the western hemisphere where the majority of the temp readings have been taken, if not when did it stop. I don`t believe there has been any large city expansion or massive land usage change in the western hemisphere (other than China) over the past 15 years or so. maybe the reason the temps leveled off from 1998 is because land change and urban development had already leveled off, if solar forcing as believed by AGW`s is so small what has caused this cooling, CO2 is still rising, PDO`s and La nina`s are still re-occurring as they have in the past, but temps have stopped rising.
A 0.4 degree C actual rise since 1900 and the sun at maximum levels, where is CO2 in all this. It`s all a load of rubbish.
”The reduced ‘forcing’ might compensate, or over-compensate, for the effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases,” he said. ”It is likely that there will be a cessation of around 20 years in the increase in world temperature, or possibly a decrease by 0.1 [degrees] or more.”
Haha, they obviously ignored the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in which the earth’s temperatures dropped by more than 0.1 degree. True. “… or more” was in their statement, but that’s to cover their asses. As I remember, during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, there were no sunspots for several decades or more and everyone nearly froze to death.
Mark:
““He points to recent data which indicates that global temperatures are probably rising faster than previously thought…”
Any clues as to what this refers to?”
He can only be talking about Antarctic melting, because every other indicator says that global temperatures are rising slower than previously thought. So Jones is putting on the blinders, looking at the 2007 Arctic meltoff, and coming to the conclusion that temperatures are rising even faster than predicted. Every case of a warmer making a statement of that type that I have seen turns out to be related to the 2007 meltoff. Of course the fact that two Canadia research papers found that 2007 was mostly due to winds and currents in the Arctic are ignored.
Leif:
“Ken’s view is actually close to my own: ”
Do you also believe that the next 20 years will give us a flat and possibly down temperature trend?
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,” Jones wrote.
Yes, but if he put his head of the the window and looked at the temperature data rather than a climate model ….
These people really do live in a cliamte model fantasy world. The model is the thing; if it don’t happen there, it don’t happen.
”I have never seen a credible paper published using a climate model that shows this,”….that says it all doesn’t it?
Mike Hodges (08:17:33) :
it would be FANTASTIC if he joined this thread. I, for one, would love to hear from the horse’s mouth. Personally, I’ve lost all trust of the MSM on this matter. If he’s happily retired, I understand.
Ken is probably [scientific term? either he is or he isn’t…] somewhat aghast over the publicity around his remarks and the abuse slinged his way. And I believe it is calving season in Australia soon…
Tilo Reber (09:40:29) :
Do you also believe that the next 20 years will give us a flat and possibly down temperature trend?
There are some indications [current ‘trend’, PDO, the Sun even, if you are into that, …] that it may be headed down, but I would not go so far as predicting it, so would just say that it would not surprise me.
Sometime ago in an interview in New Scientist they asked me a similar question, and my answer was that “IF solar activity is important, AND activity is going down, THEN …”, and that was misquoted, of course.
One of my AGW associates explained this. He’s not a true believer, just supports anything that promotes Socialism. He said “No scientist has talked about warming for years, the real problem is human induced catastrophic climate change and the economic and social disasters that follow.” He has zero technical background, but is an expert on all of this.
So we need massive government programs (and taxe) to prepare for the approaching disaster. Regulation and restriction of lifestyle.
Somehow, I think I’ve heard this before. Deja Moo?
Anecdote: I live in Toronto. Consider the following. Our city lies at latitude/longitude 43 40 79 24. We have had the snowiest winter, rainiest spring and rainiest summer in many years. I just saw some Maple Tree leaves start to turn colors. This before the end of August! This month is where we usually brace ourselves for the hottest spells; instead it has gotten cooler by many degrees and at night it is nearly at frost levels. These are not the so-called normals I grew up with here. Last year when I moved on October 2 it was over 30C. At this rate by earlier October we’ll have our first snowflakes. What a difference a year has made…….
John-X (07:49:22) :
I hope you’re right and that my theory is right. The sooner the alarmism stops, the better for everyone, especially the alarmists.
Interesting that AGW supporters like the correspondant & Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis for the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre are have having to concede that their previous assumptions (underpinned by dodgy climate models) are wrong and that there’s likely be a period of global cooling.
They and their ilk still have to prove via observable evidence that CO2 has any discernable impact on climate; if they can’t then the manmade climate scare is just that, a scare. They’re going to struggle because the world is cooling even though CO2 levels (albeit minute in the atmosphere) are going up – something the oh so clever (manipulated) models didn’t predict – Oh dear!
Great news that the planet is not warming up. 🙂
But if there’s so much cooling then how come 2008 is ‘set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850’ according to the UK Met Office. It’s still +0.281C above the 1961-1990 average. What if La Nina wears off and next year or 2010 reaches around +0.500C above average? Isn’t it a bit too soon for champagne? What about the declining Arctic Ice?
And snow in Malibu? Does that sound like normal climate conditions?
Neven,
Ever considered that the UK Met Office might be a bureaucracy in denial?
It has invested so heavily in AGW/climate change and being a leading light in the IPCC that its culture is quite possibly having difficulty in coming to terms with current climate reality
Neven, define “normal”. 🙂
Neven (11:24:04 ) Imagine a tilted hockey stick..no, no, bad image. Imagine a candy cane represents the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age, and the current temperature has stopped rising, is leveling, but has not yet fallen down an icy, slippery slope. Recent temperatures would be near record (since LIA) levels, but not nearly as high as the climate models predicted.
Other comments have addressed Arctic ice.
But if there’s so much cooling then how come 2008 is ’set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850′ according to the UK Met Office.
We’ve still got four months of data to go for 2008, that determination seems a little premature. Let’s see what August says first, eh?