New Climate Scare: Europe May be Facing Return Of 'Little Ice Age'

The Frozen Thames, 1677.
The frozen Thames, 1677 - Image via Wikipedia

Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

Britain should brace itself for another freezing winter with the return of La Niña, a climate phenomenon known to disrupt global weather, ministers have warned. The warning coincides with research from the Met Office suggesting Europe could be facing a return of the “little ice age” that gripped Britain 300 years ago, causing decades of bitter winters. The prediction, to be published in Nature, is based on observations showing a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which over a long period may trigger mini ice ages in Europe. –Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times, 9 October 2011

BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters. And it could all begin within weeks as experts said last night that the mercury may soon plunge below the record -20C endured last year. Latest evidence shows La Nina, linked to extreme winter weather in America and with a knock-on effect on Britain, is in force and will gradually strengthen as the year ends. It coincides with research from the Met Office indicating the nation could be facing a repeat of the “little ice age” that gripped the country 300 years ago, causing decades of harsh winters. –Laura Caroe, Daily Express, 10 October 2011

Some scientists predict that the Sun is heading for a long slump in solar activity known as a Grand Solar Minimum. If this happens, it is possible that Britain could return to conditions similar to those 350 years ago when sunspots vanished during “the Little Ice Age”, when ice fairs were often held on the frozen Thames in London. –Paul Simons, The Times, 10 October 2011

Investment in more winter equipment may not be economical given rarity of British snow, says RAC Foundation chairman. The row over the need for a multimillion-pound investment in snowploughs, de-icing equipment and salt stocks deepened this morning with the publication of a government-backed report using Met Office predictions that successive hard winters are rare. Quarmby said the Met Office remained convinced that the severe cold snap is a one-off phenomenon. “We cannot say this is an annual event,” he said. –Dan Milmo, The Guardian, 23 December 2010

The Met Office is working with academics to try and predict the likelihood of severe winters over the next 20-30 years. The work aims to help transport authorities understand the risks of further severe winters after the coldest December since records began in 1910. But the work was criticised this week by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts,” he said. “The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.” –Local Transport Today, 25 February 2011

In October 2009 the Met Office predicted a mild winter because of El Nino. Temperatures in December would be above average, they said. In reality  December temperatures were a whopping 1.1 degrees below the recent average. In 2010, contributing to the Quarmby Report, the Met Office advised to assume that the chance of a severe winter in 2010–11 is no greater (or less) than the current general probability of 1 in 20. Boy, were they wrong! Mean temperatures over the UK were 5.0 °C below average during December and 0.3 °C below average in January. –-David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 10 October 2011

The fact is that nobody knows if the forthcoming winter will be severe or mild. The only wise advice that can be given is to plan as if 2011 is going to be like the previous three winters, and one doesn’t need multi-million pound computers to make it. –-David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 10 October 2011

Snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. 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”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. –The Independent, 20 March 2000

Green thinking represents a challenge to the status quo? That’s a laughable idea. From schools and universities to every corner of the Western political sphere, the climate-change outlook is the status quo. In fact, it’s the new conservatism. –Brendan O’Neil, The Australian, 8 October 2011

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
196 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian R
October 10, 2011 11:31 am

I can’t wait for the AGW group to claim that a “Little Ice-Age” is exactly what one should expect from a warming world.

Frank K.
October 10, 2011 11:33 am

“BRITAIN is set to suffer a mini ice age that could last for decades and bring with it a series of bitterly cold winters.”
But…but…climate’s not weather…and…cold follows hot…and hot follows cold…and all the models are consistent..they really ARE…hot or cold…so we recommend destroying the world economy…just in case CO2 is causing it to be hot…or cold…or both…or…the sun…maybe…[~~~~~cagw brain overload~~~~~]
\cagw

October 10, 2011 11:33 am

Eat ice, Phil Jones. Eat it hard and cold. Eat it forever, Phil Jones. I’ll feed it to you. I’ll pay my entire life savings to feed it to you through all available orifices.

Zac
October 10, 2011 11:33 am

It never ceases to amaze me when I look in an atlas to see how far north Britain is. Yet the climate is so temperate thanks to the Gulf stream.

Strick
October 10, 2011 11:36 am

Stunning, simply stunning. The world turned upside down.

Madman2001
October 10, 2011 11:38 am

“The warning coincides with research from the Met Office suggesting Europe could be facing a return of the “little ice age” that gripped Britain 300 years ago, causing decades of bitter winters. ”
Whew. I’m glad that the Met is predicting this: that means it’s bound NOT to happen!

MangoChutney
October 10, 2011 11:39 am

i thought co2 over-ruled everything

Pierre
October 10, 2011 11:39 am

So then even with the appearance recently of sunspots we are still looking at another Maunder min?

Hugh Davis
October 10, 2011 11:39 am

It’s going to be pretty grim here in Britain when 40% of our conventional power stations have been closed down under EU edicts, and Chris Huhne’s windmills stop spinning (as wind turbines always do in utra-cold anticyclonic winter weather).

richard telford
October 10, 2011 11:41 am

“that the chance of a severe winter in 2010–11 is no greater (or less) than the current general probability of 1 in 20. Boy, were they wrong!”
I don’t think David Whitehouse understands probabilities. If I predict that there is only a one in six chance of a six occurring when a fair die is rolled, am I incorrect when a six does occur?
Roger Peilke made the same mistake recently – discussed at http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2011/08/roger-rabbit.html

Latitude
October 10, 2011 11:43 am

Did they really just say that warm is better??
That La Nina “disrupts” and is “linked to extreme weather”?
El Nino must be perfect weather then…………………..

stevo
October 10, 2011 11:43 am

[snip. “denial” is against site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

PB-in-AL
October 10, 2011 11:44 am

yup, gorebull warming illustrated…. must be Bush’s fault.

October 10, 2011 11:44 am

…Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts,” he said. “The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.” …
erm, right. Tell me again about the IPeCaC models that ‘prove’ gullible warming is real and worse than we thought and what was is it ‘the majority of scientists’ have been saying about 3 extra degrees by 2050 based on models and forecasts?
Hesus wept.

Carly
October 10, 2011 11:45 am

This quote gave me giggle considering all the global warming forecasting that’s been going on:
“But the work was criticised this week by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts,” he said. “The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.”

son of mulder
October 10, 2011 11:46 am

I shall prepare for a Barbeque Winter

kramer
October 10, 2011 11:46 am
3x2
October 10, 2011 11:46 am

Ah, more guess work from all.
What is worrying is that given HMG’s obsession with “global warming” and all things “green” it is doubtful that, even if we are in a “little ice age”, anything could be done. The shell game is so advanced that it could take decades to unwind.

October 10, 2011 11:46 am

“I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts,” he said. “The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.”
Really? If I said the same thing about global warming forecasts that predict doom and apocalypse, I’d be struck down as a “denier” or some other such attack.

kramer
October 10, 2011 11:48 am

I caught the following link from Steve Goddard’s real-science site a while ago. I keep wondering if the researchers in the article are right…
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aJpjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=N3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6824,139587&dq=global+warming&hl=en

Dave Springer
October 10, 2011 11:48 am

Should all this purported anthropogenic CO2 warming guarantee that things like the LIA won’t repeat themselves? Har har hardy har har.
I’ve been trying to explain for quite some time that loss of arctic sea ice is a harbinger of cold times ahead. Sea ice insulates the water beneath. Once that ice is gone and the arctic ocean is exposed to the frigid cold of outer space with nothing but thin dry air in the way it will lose the heat it picked up in the tropics like a mofo on steroids. Teh far more quickly chilled water then sinks to the bottom and begins it’s journey back to the tropics. The oceanic conveyor belt thus speeds up. Normally this would be a self-limiting phenomenon but the travel time for the conveyor belt is several years so there’s inertia in it. If you get something that causes short term intra-annual cooling (such as a volcanic eruption, and/or a solar grand minimum, and/or back-to-back La Nina, and/or AMDO going negative) and that combines with the inertial cooling inherent in substantial loss of multi-year sea ice, then you have a formula for some cold times ahead. Add on top of that the Milankovich Cycle being in prime territory for glacial dominance and you have a formula for the sudden ending of interglacial periods. Runaway warming isn’t possible due to negative feedback from clouds but runaway cooling is quite possible, has happened many times before, and the earth IS in an ice age at the present time.
So what I want to know from the climate boffins is exactlty how much CO2 we need to inject into the atmosphere to make things like the Little Ice Age a practical impossibility in the future.

Bloke down the pub
October 10, 2011 11:49 am

I’m aware of the misery that an harsh winter can cause, never the less I hope we get it as it will make more people question the BS they are being fed on cagw.

More Soylent Green!
October 10, 2011 11:50 am

Seems to me I heard something like this before. I think it was in 1978 or thereabouts.

Iggy Slanter
October 10, 2011 11:51 am

Revenge is a dish best shoved down your opponents’ face with a cold shovel.
Sorry. I’m in one of those moods.

October 10, 2011 11:51 am

BrianR
I can’t wait for the AGW group to claim that a “Little Ice-Age” is exactly what one should expect from a warming world.
===============================================
“Co-author Professor Joanna Haigh, from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London, whose research in atmospheric physics laid the groundwork for this study, said: “Compared with the effect of man-made emissions over the last century, solar variations still have a very minor effect on long-term global climate trends, but this study shows they may have a detectable influence on winter climate’.
==============================================
Yep Brian – they seem to be heading that way already !
Solar/UV only affects weather in the Northern Hemisphere during winter, it seems – the rest of the time it makes no difference at all anywhere else !

October 10, 2011 11:52 am

Somewhat ( or even greatly )exaggerated
Here I compare 30 year periods of the England’s temperatures
1685 – 1715 Maunder Minimum
1945 – 1970 Solar (grand) maximum
1981 – 2011 Current period
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/30yCET.htm
Just get an extra woolly top.

Alex the skeptic
October 10, 2011 11:53 am

Thank God for this warning of a little ice age. Coming from the British Met office, that same organisation which has not had one correct prediction for the past four years or so, I am pretty sure that this predicted little ice age will not materialise. Knowing how wrong the Met office has been, most probably it will be a mild winter.
I wonder if Piers Corbyn would have something to say about this. He mostly always gets it right

Steeptown
October 10, 2011 11:54 am

I’ve just ordered heating oil to top up the tank for winter; the log store is full; the freezers are full, the larder is full. Unfortunately I still rely on an external electricity supply, so I am still reliant on past government decisions, which mean windmills have replaced firm supply – I must get that generator installed..

Steve
October 10, 2011 11:54 am

This can’t be right, Mann proved (sic.) that the Little Ice Age did not exist, so how can we even theorise about a return to conditions such as existed at that time?!

October 10, 2011 11:56 am

It was covered on the radio this morning. The interviewee — I think from the UK Met Office — was at pains to point out that the total heat in the system remained the same but was simply distributed differently as a result of changes to the jet stream caused by lower UV. So northern Europe gets colder but overall AGW remains on track. You have to admire them!

October 10, 2011 11:56 am

Please oh please let this be the death blow to “global (whatever weather they want) panic” I mean I hate for Britain to suffer now that they can’t afford to heat their homes but maybe its what we need.

Roy Jones
October 10, 2011 12:02 pm

Today the UK Department of Health and the Met Office stood down their 2011 Heatwave Warning system – until next year. Cold kills more people than heat, but heatwaves fit in with the alarmist script.

Martin
October 10, 2011 12:03 pm

Can we now look forward to the removal of all tax on fossil fuels in a drive to emit more CO2 and stave off the predicted cooling?? I won’t hold my breath. The crooks that rule us are only interested in solutions that increase their power and/or taxation.

Luther Wu
October 10, 2011 12:04 pm

Brian R says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:31 am
I can’t wait for the AGW group to claim that a “Little Ice-Age” is exactly what one should expect from a warming world.
__________________________________________
Oh, but they do make such claims, Bryan and with monotonous regularity.
You do remember claims that recent record snowfalls, etc. have been due to a warming world because “warm air holds more moisture” (regardless of accompanying record cold temps,) don’t you?

Stephen Wilde
October 10, 2011 12:05 pm

For nearly 4 years nowI have been attempting to draw those very features that are only now being widely acknowledged into an overall scenario that seems to accord with both observations and basic physics.
Details here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
as regards the top down solar effects,
here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%E2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
as regards the bottom up oceanic effects and,
here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/climate-news/wilde-weather/feature-the-unifying-theory-of-earth%E2%80%99s-climate/36375.html
as regards the interaction between the top down and bottom up processes.
I think there are substantial merits in my approach as a new starting point for the climate debate.

Robbie
October 10, 2011 12:05 pm

Well Anthony: Are you also kind enough to provide us the title of that Nature paper in which the article is published? So I can verify and read the source and not some media statements in which I am not interested in. The media has done more than enough damage on both sides of the climate debate.

Bomber_the_Cat
October 10, 2011 12:08 pm

“The trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future. The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more”, according to the UK Met office (2009). http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html So there! All prophecies of cold winters are refuted by science. Climate science no less.
By the way, did you try to follow that link? Well, you will find that this prediction of Peter Stott (Met. Office climate scientist) has now been deleted from the Met, Office website; rather like the lead character in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ (the Big Brother novel), whose job it is to respectively delete or alter embarrassing statements from historical records. But if you click on ‘Check for the page in the web archive’, you may still find it. If not, try the national archive at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html
Now, after a succession of mild winters around the turn of the century, which led to the famous declaration that ‘Snowfalls are just now a thing of the past’, we have now had 3 very severe winters in a row, with 2010 being the coldest December since records began! No wonder they deleted it!
So, for you statisticians -what are the chances of that?

Kev-in-Uk
October 10, 2011 12:09 pm

I am sure the term ‘climate disruption’ will become prevalent again!
But then again, the current ‘climate change’ term is a perfect catch all, isn’t it? I think we should all keep to the original officially touted title of ‘Global Warming’ – let’s at least keep reminding the bar stewards of CAGW that that’s what THEY started!

Gary Pearse
October 10, 2011 12:10 pm

Let’s name the first snowfall each year David Viner day – he probably won’t mind if we leave off the Dr. part.

CinbadtheSailor
October 10, 2011 12:10 pm

Why does anyone listen to these half wits?
It is a bit like the UK budget – leak something beforehand that is really bad so when the real news comes out people do not think it is that awful. Another cold winter but the world is really heating up – yeah right! What happened to the Hockey – get inverted? – did Mann have it upside down after all!

Kev-in-Uk
October 10, 2011 12:14 pm

polistra says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:33 am
PMSL – AND I’d pay to watch! (though maybe not every orifice!).
On a more serious note, those of us in the UK unable to pay the exagerrated price of ‘carbon’ due to the scaremongering by the likes of Jones et al, will be the ones who actually suffer. Jones and the many other brown nosing AGW scammers (I refuse to call them scientists) have doubtless milked enough from the public funded ‘research’ to pay for their fuel bills!

Dodgy Geezer
October 10, 2011 12:15 pm

“…Britain should brace itself for another freezing winter with the return of La Niña, a climate phenomenon known to disrupt global weather, ministers have warned….”
Umm. If British Ministers tell you the sun goes down at night you should start preparing for 24 hours of daytime. They lie even when there is no need to, just to keep in habit. They are regularly beaten by bankers, estate agent and lawyers in truth contests. They would give Australian politicians a run for their money…

Gary Hladik
October 10, 2011 12:16 pm

Because as we all know, “La Nina” is Spanish for “Little Ice Age”. /sarc
I liked it better when they were predicting we’d all roast to death.

Ari
October 10, 2011 12:20 pm

Just two winters to start talking about LIA. Trash the same level of CAGW.

TheGoodLocust
October 10, 2011 12:23 pm

I like how they say “300 years ago” when, if I recall correctly, the LIA ended about 100 years ago. I guess if they pointed out such inconvenient facts then it might weaken the global warming narrative and the validity of showing surface station records that are only 100 years old.

AdderW
October 10, 2011 12:26 pm

Ari says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Just two winters to start talking about LIA. Trash the same level of CAGW.

Noooo, it was about the sun you see … go back and read it again.

Byz
October 10, 2011 12:27 pm

in the last 30 years la nina has tended to give us mild winters in the UK, however the sun was very active prior to that la nina gave cold winters.
Last December we had a very cold month but then we had a milder January and February.
Unfortunately the weather is chaotic so their predictions cannot be relied upon (remember the barbecue Summer!).
What is true is due to weaker UV from the Sun we are getting more waves on the jet stream which cause long term blocking patterns so we are now getting longer periods of higher or lower temperatures than have been present for over a century and if the Sun becomes less active maybe the jet stream will move to a more equatorial position. If this happens food production will fall this is not a good outcome, however we have no control over this 🙁

Peter H
October 10, 2011 12:28 pm

Not much here bar disgusting insults by the likes of ‘Polistra’ and ‘Iggy Slanter’, the usual snark by most and a good deal of final nail hammering.
Such has been the mill run of WUWT for years, I expect it to continue.
The truth is that these solar UV effects, if they turn out to be real, are regional and that cold in one place is more than cancelled out by warmth elsewhere. In the UK this year the Central England Temperature is running at around a top ten 1C above normal…Expect a year of record global warmth soon is my prediction. Yes, I know what that makes me ‘thanks’….

PhilC
October 10, 2011 12:33 pm

@jazznick
The BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme carried an interview with Prof Joanna Haigh this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b015mzkp
1 hour 19 minutes into the broadcast.
Cold winters neatly explained away.

DirkH
October 10, 2011 12:36 pm

richard telford says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:41 am
“I don’t think David Whitehouse understands probabilities. If I predict that there is only a one in six chance of a six occurring when a fair die is rolled, am I incorrect when a six does occur? ”
How big, Richard, then, is the chance of two sixes in a row. How big is the chance of three sixes in a row. Express the resulting probability in percent. Compare with the IPCC’s definition of the phrase “highly unlikely”. How many percent is “Highly Unlikely”?
See you in the class tomorrow.

October 10, 2011 12:38 pm

Not surprising.
Ask yourselves how many time times you have argued that 1200km is too far to extrapolate?
why? well you make that argument because you believe that it can cool in one place, while it warms in another.
Ask yourself how many times you have argued for more station coverage. Why? because it can cool in one place while it warms in another.
It cools in england by 2C
It warms in the arctic by 4C
on “average” which is all the models can really predict, you have ‘warming’.
locally, people never see the average.
cause the average is never an observed quantity.
The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.

rbateman
October 10, 2011 12:41 pm

It will take another 10 (+/- 2) years of babbling about climate change due to Global Warming before they get around to selling climate change due to Global Cooling. There is a 20 year lag in the CO2 hypothesis, and they don’t care which way the ball bounces, as long as they can scare people to death.
Look for some really bizzare theories such as CO2 dry ice hail that froze the wooly mamoths, etc in place.
Perhaps a tipping point where man puts enough CO2 into the atmosphere that CO2 thunderstorms become the engines of an Ice Age plunge.

Antoninus
October 10, 2011 12:42 pm

AGW due to Co2 as we know it.. is finished, and they know it too. “Ol soldiers never die they only fade away”. We are now in the intense fading away stage…By 2013 AGW will be a non-existent issue mark my words. Jones, Mann ect will be history, retired or jubilated LOL

Tez
October 10, 2011 12:43 pm

This is grreat news, just think, no more extreme weather events, no more hurricanes or floods or droughts. AND the climate will remain constant.
This could also mean a reprieve for the 4.5 Billion people expected to die from globul warming by the end of this year. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
I wonder whether anyone has passed this news onto Maurice Strong yet?

Antoninus
October 10, 2011 12:45 pm

I know AW or Gavin SChmidt probably would not want to answer this but I bet that by now there has been a pretty severe drop in interest (hits ect) in the whole climate issue on the part of skeptics as well as alarmists/believers, Some diehards will hang on LOL

Scottish Sceptic
October 10, 2011 12:46 pm

Petition: Take seriously the risk of more extreme winters
Following a succession of cold winters and cool summers (like the notorious BBQ summer), we now have corroboration by the CERN physics institute of the work of Svensmark and others which clearly indicates a link between climate and solar activity. Other scientists suggest that the recent drop in solar activity may herald a new Maunder minimum which was a period of low solar activity, few sunspots and extremely cold weather. In light of this evidence, we ask the government to ensure it is prepared for a sustained period of extreme cold and ask it to urgently undertake research to understand the effects of solar activity.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/15656

Yarmy
October 10, 2011 12:47 pm

@Peter H
“The truth is that these solar UV effects, if they turn out to be real, are regional and that cold in one place is more than cancelled out by warmth elsewhere. In the UK this year the Central England Temperature is running at around a top ten 1C above normal…”
Indeed, yet somehow we all survived its ravages to live another year.

Urederra
October 10, 2011 12:47 pm

CO2 drives weather, but in Britain it drives on the othe side of the road, so it causes cold instead of hot.
😛

October 10, 2011 12:47 pm

I’m *very* suspicious about Peiser’s claims that Nature is publishing any such article warning of a return of the LIA. This doesn’t smell right. It would mark a complete reversal for Nature, and that’s just asking for too much, too soon,

Resourceguy
October 10, 2011 12:47 pm

The loop will now be closed—the infinite loop of possible outcomes that is.

Stephen Wilde
October 10, 2011 12:49 pm

PhilC
Strange that Joanna was so sure of herself on that radio interview. I sent her my suggestions as to how it could work some time ago but she has apparently not considered the possibilities that I raised.
She hasn’t yet responded to this either:
“Dear Joanna,
We corresponded by email last November concerning the above and my
interpretation of what appears to be going on in the atmosphere.
I wonder whether there is any new data since then, in particular as to
warming of the stratosphere whilst the sun remains relatively inactive as
compared to cycles 21 to 23.
I recall that the data then available was only up to 2005 and you pointed
out that the upper stratosphere was not warming significantly at that date.
However you had noted an unexpected increase in ozone above 45 km from 2004
to 2007 and I wonder whether that has continued and whether it has led to
any warming of the mesosphere.
The importance of such matters is that I can only envisage the atmospheric
changes necessary to explain the MWP, LIA and the current warm period on the
basis that the stratosphere cooled in the MWP and the late 20th century warm
period but warmed in the LIA.
The jets clearly move equatorward when the stratosphere warms yet they moved
equatorward during the LIA when the sun was less active.
That implies the reverse sign solar effect that you mentioned previously.
Best regards,
Stephen P R Wilde.”

TomLT
October 10, 2011 12:56 pm

I know what it is. It is PEAK WARMING!
Because of AGW we have clearly used up all of our available warmth and now are doomed to colder and colder winters.

pauline
October 10, 2011 12:58 pm

just back from Royal Society lectures…….now this article….now so totally confused that I wouldn’t recognise an iceberg if one floated by my house in London (sea level rise), all I know is that I know nothing

October 10, 2011 1:01 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP.”
Thank you for your opinion. However, facts trump opinion in this instance. The lack of sunspots coincided with the LIA, and there are copious references to global warming during the MWP in both hemispheres. I don’t have time to re-post those citations, graphs and links right now, but maybe later today.

October 10, 2011 1:02 pm

It never ceases to amaze me when I look in an atlas to see how far north Britain is. Yet the climate is so temperate thanks to the Gulf stream.

It has very little to do with the Gulf Stream. London is almost at the same latitude as Vancouver and has similar climate. even though Vancouver has a cold ocean current flowing past it.

Brian
October 10, 2011 1:03 pm

lol. This has to be a joke… Surely.

Joe V.
October 10, 2011 1:03 pm

Strick says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:36 am
“Stunning, simply stunning. The world turned upside down.”
Isn’t that what’s supposed likely to happen next Christmas, (2012), as it’s already so Top Heavy ?

Barbara Skolaut
October 10, 2011 1:10 pm

“I caught the following link from Steve Goddard’s real-science site a while ago.”
Love the date, kramer. ;-p

Stephen Wilde
October 10, 2011 1:12 pm

Steven Mosher said:
“The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.”
There is rapidly accumulating evidence that that is not so.
If changes in solar activity affect the atmosphere from the top down which is now admitted at some pretty high academic levels and in the public domain then it is inconceivable that the effects will be limited only to our little patch of the planet.
Solar changes have global effects if they have any effects at all.
We have observed poleward / zonal jets with a cooling stratosphere and active sun during the late 20th century.
We now observe more meridional / equatorward jets with a stratosphere no longer cooling and possibly warming with a quieter sun since 2000:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
As Joanna Haigh herself said previously:
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations”
from here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
Certain questions need some serious reconsideration and behind it all lies the IPCC assertion that the sun had a minimal contribution to the late 20th century tropospheric warming.
The IPCC assessment of probabilities is no longer valid as to causation.

Aunty Freeze
October 10, 2011 1:13 pm

So we have the met saying that we are in a series of harsh winters and heading for a little ice age but on there long range prediction charts they have a higher probability of an above average winter.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/prob_ensemble/20111001/3up_20111001_temp2m_months35_europe_prob_public.png
I normally expect the opposite of what they say.

October 10, 2011 1:15 pm

Well, there was a study in Nature Geoscience about solar ultraviolet irradiance and lowered temperatures. But there’s nothing in the article about a return to a Little Ice Age. It is about decadal forecasts linked to the solar cycle,

Leon Brozyna
October 10, 2011 1:18 pm

Time to cue Al Gore for a European speaking tour this winter …

Ursus Augustus
October 10, 2011 1:20 pm

But the work was criticised this week by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts,” he said. “The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.”
What? Some sober reflection on alarmist predictions from an AGW apparatchik?
Is it April 1 already?

juanslayton
October 10, 2011 1:25 pm

Antoninus:
I bet that by now there has been a pretty severe drop in interest (hits ect) in the whole climate issue on the part of skeptics as well as alarmists/believers….
Would that it were true. Starting with the California legislature.

Joe V.
October 10, 2011 1:27 pm

What makes us think its only going to be a ‘mini’, this impending ice age ?

rbateman
October 10, 2011 1:31 pm

Smokey says:
October 10, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Yes, the literature preceeds the Renaisance observations, and that same literature does indeed paint a global extent of the MWP and the LIA when assembled. Parchment, ink and time were precious commodities, and it had better be worth writing about, or else they wouldn’t have bothered. There were no global theories about climate or weather, and not much in the way of instrumentation. Accurate accounts were crucial in assessing what the trade prospects and transportation routes/needs were.

October 10, 2011 1:31 pm

Let’s all just pay our taxes to the co2 god and hope he spares us..
/sarc off

View from the Solent
October 10, 2011 1:32 pm

Robbie says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Well Anthony: Are you also kind enough to provide us the title of that Nature paper in which the article is published? So I can verify and read the source and not some media statements in which I am not interested in. The media has done more than enough damage on both sides of the climate debate.
==========================================================
Here http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1282.html
Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere
and http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ngeo1298.pdf
Atmospheric science: Solar cycle and climate predictions
You’ll need either a subscription or academic access to nature geoscience.

Richard Day
October 10, 2011 1:32 pm

Uh-oh. Does the Goreacle intend to make London his new permanent residence? And just when the little tykes thought snow was going to be a very rare and exciting event.

Ursus Augustus
October 10, 2011 1:33 pm

My mistake – Benny Peiser is a rational human being it seems. Just me being unfamiliar with him. where have I been hiding? Tasmania. Please forgive me, its 07:30 and I’m just catching up. Need another coffee I think.

John Peter
October 10, 2011 1:34 pm

Steven Mosher: “The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.”
Regarding MWP Steven Mosher may wish peruse http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php before he makes this statement again at least with regards to MWP.

G. Karst
October 10, 2011 1:36 pm

If one is going to discuss climate change or claim understanding of climate, it becomes necessary to explain the LIA and the MWP. CO2 really doesn’t explain any of the major climate changes, and cannot even explain the minor changes.
Cooling has always been the danger and will always be the imminent peril. It has been since Mankind stopped swinging through trees. Warming increases bio-available moisture, as it increases frost free land and melts ice, increasing surface area of all water bodies. Cooling reduces bio-available moisture by locking greater amounts of ice in glaciers and poles. Desertification follows.
Warming is a pleasant walk in the park. Cooling is the horror story of Hansen and Gretal, when it was considered better to abandon starving children to the wolves, then watch them die, slowly. Women living alone in the forest were burned as witches. How, a few scientists and NGOs were able to reverse Man’s perception of danger, is beyond my reasoning. GK

stephen richards
October 10, 2011 1:37 pm

They are just the biggest bunch of clowns ever are they not. All of a sudden their thoroughly useless computer model, which has failed, failed and failed again, which would not allow them to predict winters, summers on any other medium to long term weather has shown that the sun, which was not programed in before, will give us very cold winters? PLONKERS all of them.
Shut down that damn UK met office. A complete waste of several million pouns per year.

Ursus Augustus
October 10, 2011 1:38 pm

But, have you heard the one about the alarmist report issued by the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change? No snow in our high country in 50 years time. Bushfires! Aramgeddon! And just in time to inform the people ahead of this week’s vote on the new Carbon Tax legislation.
Never mind that last year was a bumper snow year, we are a month into spring and Tasmania has snow down to 800 metres and it is a bit nippy in the morning, there is so much water in the Snowy Mountains hydro reservoirs that see fit to dump several gazillion gigalitres down the Snowy River just for environmental flow.
That must just be Gaia’s sucker punch.

Stephen Brown
October 10, 2011 1:43 pm

I was wondering why there appeared to be a political volte face with regard to the threat of warble gloaming:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100108989/lets-commit-suicide-more-slowly-suggests-osborne/

dtbronzich
October 10, 2011 1:43 pm

What’s wrong with a brand new hypothesis? Man causes global cooling, because (fill in ludicrous hypothesis here)……..perhaps global____________is caused by our hubris, not our pollution. (fill in blank as you see fit) /sarc

Stephen Brown
October 10, 2011 1:44 pm

Damn! Got the the wrong way round!

October 10, 2011 1:46 pm

All of the Northern Hemisphere is having brutal winters. A USA ski area has just opened not long after the last to close in July. Why is all this happening every year lately? The Sun is in a grand solar minimum and the Ocean is colder than normal while Arctic Air intrusions are occuring because of negative oscilation. The highlights of the last 4 USA winters included blizzards, the coldest winter in 30 years last year, heavy snow all years, 2nd place 71% snow cover last year, 50F temperatures, frequent freezing past the Mexican border and into Florida, strong wind near low pressure systems, ice dams on roofs http://www.HeatersPlus.com/roofs.html and more will all continue in brutal winter 2011-2012.

roger
October 10, 2011 1:47 pm

This idea of a cold winter already has traction in of all places the Dept of Energy and Climate Change who produced a junior Conservative minister on the BBC to explain how a whole tranche of new benefit monies would be made available this winter for cold weather payments to needy pensioners and others for whom the ROC had become a tax to far.
His embarrassment was obvious as I wondered at the incongruity of a climate change person being wheeled out to explain a cold weather benefit but he need not have worried over the duplicity of his position. It was only the BBC that was interviewing him and the elephant that he saw in the room went unremarked by his interviewer to whom elephants had obviously become a commonplace occurence.

James Allison
October 10, 2011 1:48 pm

Julia Gillard must be thrilled that Mother Gaia is cooling her heels at the mere thought of a carbon tax.

Theo Goodwin
October 10, 2011 1:55 pm

Zac says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:33 am
“It never ceases to amaze me when I look in an atlas to see how far north Britain is. Yet the climate is so temperate thanks to the Gulf stream.”
Yes, Britain is far north. The climate is temperate for islands that far north. However, it is not temperate in a way that a teenager from south of St. Louis might understand as temperate. For example, in the Highlands of Scotland, the sun can rise at nine and set at three. Temperate enough for you?

John T
October 10, 2011 1:57 pm

I’ve always said a little global warming doesn’t worry me. A little global cooling… That’s a problem.
Oceans a few inches higher aren’t going to hurt New York City. But what do you do if there’s an ice sheet a mile thick over the whole state? Aren’t we nearing the end of the 10-15kyear warm periods that break up the much longer ice ages?

Dave Wendt
October 10, 2011 1:58 pm

It would appear that the lads from the Met have finally realized that they suffer from their own version of the “Gore Effect” i.e. there is a nice inverse correlation between what they forecast for future weather and what actually transpires. Thus the only hope for the kind of dramatic uptick in temperatures that could possibly reignite the dwindling fires of AGWphobia is for them to predict a looming ice age. In taking one for the team in this fashion they do face the prospect of future embarrassment if their ploy is successful but, given their performance in recent years, they seem to have moved beyond the archaic concept of being embarrassed by poor performance

Theo Goodwin
October 10, 2011 2:01 pm

3×2 says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:46 am
“Ah, more guess work from all.
What is worrying is that given HMG’s obsession with “global warming” and all things “green” it is doubtful that, even if we are in a “little ice age”, anything could be done. The shell game is so advanced that it could take decades to unwind.”
The semantic gymnastics will be fabulous. They can start with the claim that this new Little Ice Age would have been far worse except for global warming. But then they will have to explain why all this Natural Variability suddenly appeared. That will be their next great trick. I can’t wait.

Donald
October 10, 2011 2:06 pm

I cannot wait for this guys 11/12 smackdown………got any books to burn?

kim
October 10, 2011 2:06 pm

The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry-violet rays.
H/t Noel Coward, mistily in Plum’s pomegranate orchard.
=================

zac
October 10, 2011 2:09 pm

“it has very little to do with the Gulf Stream. London is almost at the same latitude as Vancouver and has similar climate. even though Vancouver has a cold ocean current flowing past it”
London is not Britain. London is about 200 miles North of Vancouver. London is at the Southern end of Britain. The Scottish Western Isles enjoy a far more temperate climate than Vancouver and they are another at least another 400 miles further North than London.
The only thing that can cause this phenomenon is the Gulf Stream, which in recent times has been relabeled the North Atlantic drift.
Most of Britain is further North than Hudson Bay.

Mike Smith
October 10, 2011 2:18 pm

In the unlikely event the Met Office forecast proves correct… folks may finally wake up to the fact that a trend to lower temperatures is far worse than a trend to warmer temperatures. There will be real problems with people affording sufficient heat, even assuming the energy producers can satisfy demand. The resulting loss of life will not be insignificant!

October 10, 2011 2:24 pm

The Grand Solar Maximum officially ended in 2009, when the Grand Solar Minimum began. (This according to duhau and de Jaeger, http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html)
Prepare for cold, lots of cold – for decades. And no increase in CO2 is going to stop it.

October 10, 2011 2:35 pm

I don’t think ENSO makes much of a difference to English or European winters – we have had three cold winters in a row, one of which was during El Nino, another during la Nina, and one in between – what matters is the loopiness of the jetstream and how far north or south it travels. The science alerting us to the jetstream being pushed south and flatenning during low UV episodes is at least as old as 2003 when extrapolations were made back to the Little Ice Age and Maunder Minimum (Drew Shindell at NASA – but then I think he got taken off the job). This science was ignored by the IPCC and I might add, the UK MetOffice – I wrote to them about it and who knows, may have sparked their current interest, when writing ‘Chill’…..where I anticipated the last three cold winters on the basis of the work of ‘he who must not be named on this blogsite’ who in a 2004 paper predicted the low solar cycle 24 and that 25 would probably be lower still, with a strong chance of precipitating a Maunder-type minimum. The extra low UV data for the recent solar minimum points to the Maunder Minimum having had the same ‘weather’ patterns as we see now – where contrary to expectations from warmer world theories where the jetstream runs more northerly, it shifts south.
Oeanographic climate experts will know that what happens in the North Atlantic can shape what happens globally – and what happens is that cloud patterns and oceanic heat budgets are affected and the effect is cumulative over time. Something determines the long-term cycles we see in the ice-cores – and their often very rapid rises in temperature in Greenland for example suggest rapid changes in wind patterns.
The late 20th century warming has no doubt been partly or mainly (in my view) driven by the long term cycle peaking – yet many climate scientists who now can say the dropping cycle is counteracting the warming cannot embrace the obvious corrolary that the cycle amplified it in the first place (and cannot possibly embrace the possibility the CO2-effect was not much to amplify anyway and that most of the warming is natural).
As far as I am aware, only ‘he who must not be named’ actually predicted a potential grand solar minimum after cycle 24. I hope he gets the credit he deserves.
Meanwhile the jetstream is more south than usual – over central Britain rather than just north of Scotland, but is kinking up after the flat summer – and the high pressure systems will form and give us another very cold winter. As also in northern USA wheatbelt, Scandinavia and Russia, Mongolia and China, as well as Argentina for the equivalent in the southern hemisphere…..all major areas of food production that are vulnerable. And the world is still not ready to deal with a food deficit.

Gail Combs
October 10, 2011 2:46 pm

Bloke down the pub says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:49 am
I’m aware of the misery that an harsh winter can cause, never the less I hope we get it as it will make more people question the BS they are being fed on cagw.
______________________________________________________________
I also hope the USA, especially Washington DC gets plastered. It will cost me a pretty penny in added hay and grain but if it wakes people up before the next elections it would be well worth it.
Meanwhile I need another place to store the extra load of hay….

Nigel S
October 10, 2011 2:48 pm

Getting new chains for the newish car (old chains/car excellent last year) and a UPS for the windmill brownouts. No doubt road clearing will be as hopeless as last time. Food, shovel, warm clothes in the car, sweaters and hats at home. I don’t really mind making my own arrangements if only I didn’t have to pay the taxes too for the services I don’t get.

kwik
October 10, 2011 2:49 pm

I hope harry_readme.txt is involved in this, with his little adj( ) array!

October 10, 2011 2:56 pm

I think the Met Office have devised a failsafe formula.
If it’s warm, they can say AGW! AGW! we told ya so! and if it’s cold they can say Freezing! Freezing! we told ya so! They may even have sent an anonymous caller to pay Piers to have a peek at his forecasts which they can incorporate into their own so as to have a better chance of saying Told ya so!
Certainly, making noises about the Sun is moving in the direction of the real source of temperature change longterm (Landscheidt, Daly, Sharp, SSB etc is no doubt still a bridge too far) which means……….. (drum roll) ………… that they will even at this eleventh hour turnabout retain their credibility, power to demand homage, and ability to say Told ya so! which after all is their sole raison d’etre. People have short memories and will forget AGW before remembering how ruthlessly the Met Office supported it and crushed dissent… until it saw fit to quietly appropriate the dissenting views as its own.
/cynic

Gail Combs
October 10, 2011 2:57 pm

Kev-in-Uk says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:14 pm
polistra says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:33 am
PMSL – AND I’d pay to watch! (though maybe not every orifice!).
On a more serious note, those of us in the UK unable to pay the exagerrated price of ‘carbon’ due to the scaremongering by the likes of Jones et al, will be the ones who actually suffer. Jones and the many other brown nosing AGW scammers (I refuse to call them scientists) have doubtless milked enough from the public funded ‘research’ to pay for their fuel bills!
_________________________________________________
No, No Kev, you have it WRONG!
Get with the program – Jones and Mann will be on the beaches in the Caribbean doing “Research” on the link between global Warming and Malaria all on your nickel, ERRrrrr pence.

Kaboom
October 10, 2011 3:00 pm

If we had more CO2 this wouldn’t happen. Start the crimes against humanity tribunals now!

DavidS
October 10, 2011 3:01 pm

I believe that Joe Bastardi has been saying for some time, (Joe or anyone else please correct me if I am wrong) that the people who would normaly talk up or push the AGW angle know that there is a cooling coming. Is this a way of qualiying that cooling within the AGW meme?

Matt G
October 10, 2011 3:01 pm

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Just to add without the obvious already mentioned by other people replying to your post.
1) How can this only be regional when during the instrumental record, the same regions concerned have behaved like wise with global temperatures.
2) Instrumental records since the LIA (1850’s) have showed increased temperatures in all global site regions.
How can other regions warm since the 1850’s likewise with the regions concerned, yet didn’t cool from the LIA in the first place? During the instrumental record the LIA nonsense of regional areas only affected is not demonstrated at all during warming and cooling global espisodes.

Sun Spot
October 10, 2011 3:09 pm

@Dave Springer says: October 10, 2011 at 11:48 am
I agree with your statement. An addition of CO2 to our atmosphere is not ony benificial, it might save us from the catastrophy of an ice age. It’s pathetic that science spend billions on researching CO2’s effect on weather/climate and we still don’t have a clue as to what causes an icae age. Its an ice age that will kill billions not CO2.

Paul Vaughan
October 10, 2011 3:11 pm

“The Met Office is working with academics to try and predict the likelihood of severe winters […] the Met Office advised to assume that the chance of a severe winter in 2010–11 is no greater (or less) than the current general probability of 1 in 20.”
I’m actually starting to get quite angry at the people relentlessly & cluelessly pushing the patently untenable assumption of randomness. Perhaps the public is actually going to have to outright strip these people of their powers. My advice to these people: Develop a clue now. Also: Please feel welcome to ask for help. Cordial relations are entirely feasible with the right approach. Best Regards.

Ian Hoder
October 10, 2011 3:18 pm

I’m not sure I’d jump on the “It’s going to get colder” bandwagon yet. As failed models attest, the climate is a very complex system. I am glad to see some scientists acknowledging to the public that the sun does play a role in climate though.

October 10, 2011 3:22 pm

Most of Britain is further North than Hudson Bay.
Most of Norway, and all of Iceland (which also get the Gulf Stream) is further North than the southernmost end of the Greenland ice cap. Yet Norway is inhabited right up to Nordkapp which is on the same latitude as the middle of Greenland. Norway also spans the same latitude range as Alaska. USA spans the latitudes from Cairo to Switzerland, with New York further South than the whole of France.
What a huge difference ocean currents make in one way! What a huge difference the size of landmass, and its latitudinal centre of gravity, make in another way!

Robert Austin
October 10, 2011 3:25 pm

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.”
I am genuinely surprised and disappointed that Steven Mosher would make this statement with such bold assurance. I hardly think the science warrants such certitude. Is Steven getting “religion”?

clipe
October 10, 2011 3:28 pm

Palm trees of Rothesay, Scotland.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rothesay_gardens_-_geograph.org.uk_-_799345.jpg
Sailed on The Waverley from Glasgow to Rothesay (1964ish) as a wee boy. Was stunned to see, live and in colour, real Palm trees.

Matt G
October 10, 2011 3:32 pm

The CET ‘Central England Temperature’ has roughly 30 year periods of warming and cooling throughout the data set from the 17th century. These match up with the global temperatures that are available during this period. Therefore at least by this data, England doesn’t behave generally different from global temperatures over decades. Unless the sun becomes much less active over the next 2 cycles (nobody knows for sure yet, then a LIA maybe possible) Anything else this report is just over estimating a normally cyclic 30 year cooling period mentioned above.
La Nina affects winter weather in the UK quite widely from very mild to very severe winters. Usually when the UK has a strong La Nina lasting throughout the three winter months, (December, January and February) mild/very mild winters are expected. (zonal with weather fronts coming off the Atlantic ocean) If the NAO supports the negative phase during the period, coldest weather tends to occur at the beginning of winter and can avoid the mild/very mild tradition. When La Nina is weak during the UK winter, these are the periods prone to the coldest winters, especially when the NAO supports a negative phase during this time. (1962/63 was a famous UK winter example)

Bruce of Newcastle
October 10, 2011 3:44 pm

You’ve got to say that the Met Office is not quick on the uptake, but it is encouraging they are actually starting to look at solar variability.
Here’s a quote from the Science News article from yesterday (““Solar changes help create cold northern winters“):
“If the Met Office computer model can accurately reproduce past forecasts, the researchers hope to start incorporating solar variability into long-term weather predictions.”
My boldface. In other words in their model they currently assume the Sun is this unchanging ball of fire in the sky. As they say, the only way from here is up.

Green Sand
October 10, 2011 3:44 pm

Just imagine how the Met Office feels today!
Just like the good old days of the 60’s – I’m alright Jack!
The Sun looks after the UK and the Magical Met Office, cos it does things just to the UK (well grudgingly, maybe other bits of Europe) that it does not do to the rest of the planet. So there! We know why we are getting colder, we have our Sun and we are happy, our Sun looks after us! No nasty global warming for us! The rest of you just get off and sort yourselves out, you need to, cos you are getting super, super warm in order to allow the Magical Met Office and the UK to get cooler!
The Sun knows who to look after!
Ground control to Major Tom….

Gary Pearse
October 10, 2011 3:54 pm

This is what happens when you plot your temperature proxies upside down. Hey the Yamal tree ring proxy said we were going to get lower temps so they snipped a quarter century of data that showed declining temps and spliced on the ‘homogenized’ record. You can hide the decline in a graph, but its hard to do when the decline occurs in reality! They will try though. I guess there was a lot more heat lost in the deep oceans than is good for us – what say Dr T.

Resourceguy
October 10, 2011 3:54 pm

Let us see now, we have a falling PDO, a topping out of AMO, and a cyclical change to lower output in solar activity. Even before a fall in the AMO and a peak in the current, lowered solar cycle we already have a leveling out of global mean sea level and global mean ocean heat content.
…….and God said let there be LOL!

philincalifornia
October 10, 2011 3:56 pm

Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:48 am
So what I want to know from the climate boffins is exactlty how much CO2 we need to inject into the atmosphere to make things like the Little Ice Age a practical impossibility in the future.
============================
I think that R. Gates considers this to be his particular field of specialty. I’m expecting that he will be able to tell you to within 10ppm.

Jeff D
October 10, 2011 3:59 pm

I am at a loss. Could anyone give me a climate condition that is the opposite of CAGW. They seem to have claimed all the good ones. Is there anything left?
No snow – warming
Record snow – warming
Mild winter – warming
Record cold – warming
Drought – warming
floods – warming
Rise in sea level – warming
Fall in sea level – warming
Less clouds – warming
More clouds – warming
More winter Arctic ice – warming
Less summer Arctic ice – warming

jono
October 10, 2011 4:03 pm

and its only two days ago I was enthralled by a local newspaper advert (Devon, England) stating/including “snow tyres”… To the best of my knowledge, and we visit Switzerland once or twice a year, this is the first time I have EVER seen “snow tyres” detailed in press in the South of England.
but it fits the pattern nicely of having been snowed in for three days last winter.
need a nother windmill ?

AJB
October 10, 2011 4:05 pm

Cardinal Roger Black in his disinformation pulpit preaching new distortions of old news …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065
Complete with mandatory team exclusions of course. UV apparently no longer forms ozone, it’s absorbed by it. ‘Barking’ indeed.

Editor
October 10, 2011 4:20 pm

It is important to note that the depths of the Little Ice Age;
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
also coincides with a period of a high number of major volcanoes. i.e. ones with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) rated 5 or higher:
1580 ± 20 – VEI6 – Billy Mitchell
1586 – VEI5? – Kelut, Java
1593 – VEI5? – Raung, Java
1600 – VEI6 – Huaynaputina
1625 – VEI5 – Katla
1640 – VEI5 – Komaga-Take, Japan
1641 – VEI6 – Mount Parker
1650 – VEI6 – Kolumbo, Santorini
1660 – VEI6 – Long Island (Papua New Guinea)
1663 – VEI5 – Usu, Japan
1667 – VEI5 – Shikotsu (Tarumai), Japan
1673 – VEI5? – Gamkonora, Halmahera
1680 – VEI5? – Tongkoko, Sulaw
As comparison, note the lower number of major volcanoes that occurred during the last century:
1902 – VEI6(?) – Santa Maria, Guatemala
1907 – VEI5 – Ksudach, Kamchatka
1912 – VEI6 – Novarupta (Katmai)
1932 – VEI5+ – Azul, Cerro (Quizapu)
1956 – VEI5 – Bezymianny, Kamchatchka
1980 – VEI5 – St Helens, US
1982 – VEI5 – El Chichon, Mexico
1991 – VEI6 – Pinatubo, Philippines
The effects of volcanoes on Earth’s climate are well know, e.g. “the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.
In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The next four years after the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887 to 1888 included powerful blizzards.Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.
A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the population. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.
In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601 to 1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[4]
In 1452 or 1453, a cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.
The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[5] perhaps that of Kaharoa, New Zealand, which lasted about five years.[6]
The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
One big volcano and we could be in for a world of hurt…

Reply to  Just The Facts
October 11, 2011 12:44 pm

“…One big volcano and we could be in for a world of hurt…”
Eyjafjallajøkull brought EUssr air traffic to a halt not so long ago. Based on anecdotal historical evidence, one should suspect big sister Katla is due in the not too distant future.
“Eyjafjallajokull has blown three times in the past thousand years,” Dr McGarvie told The Times, “in 920AD, in 1612 and between 1821 and 1823. Each time it set off Katla.” from The Times March 21 2010.
The recent rumbling seems to have even the treehuggers taking note:
http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/international-news/122604-earthquake-swarm-after-officials-confirm-eruption-at-iceland-volcano-katla.html
linked from here (yesterday):
http://www.katla-volcano.co.uk/
Last time Katla had threw a wobbly in 1918, she was erupting for 14 months.
Better stockpile some coal or oil for the fire before the watermelons ban it.

Gail Combs
October 10, 2011 4:20 pm

Jeff D says:
October 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I am at a loss. Could anyone give me a climate condition that is the opposite of CAGW. They seem to have claimed all the good ones. Is there anything left?…
________________________________________________
YES! A thriving economy and money in our pockets./sarc

pauline
October 10, 2011 4:37 pm

Katla, eartquake swarm 5 days ago. Sounds like it might erupt? icelandic authorities seem concerned

jimmi_the_dalek
October 10, 2011 4:46 pm

This whole thing reminds me of one of those games where you pass on a message with minor alterations until it becomes radically different. The article here is composed of quotes from an assortment of media sources.
Here is the abstract of the article they are starting from:
Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere
Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray & Joanna D. Haigh
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Geoscience (2011) doi:10.1038/ngeo1282
Received 18 April 2011 Accepted 07 September 2011 Published online 09 October 2011
An influence of solar irradiance variations on Earth’s surface climate has been repeatedly suggested, based on correlations between solar variability and meteorological variables1. Specifically, weaker westerly winds have been observed in winters with a less active sun, for example at the minimum phase of the 11-year sunspot cycle2, 3, 4. With some possible exceptions5, 6, it has proved difficult for climate models to consistently reproduce this signal7, 8. Spectral Irradiance Monitor satellite measurements indicate that variations in solar ultraviolet irradiance may be larger than previously thought9. Here we drive an ocean–atmosphere climate model with ultraviolet irradiance variations based on these observations. We find that the model responds to the solar minimum with patterns in surface pressure and temperature that resemble the negative phase of the North Atlantic or Arctic Oscillation, of similar magnitude to observations. In our model, the anomalies descend through the depth of the extratropical winter atmosphere. If the updated measurements of solar ultraviolet irradiance are correct, low solar activity, as observed during recent years, drives cold winters in northern Europe and the United States, and mild winters over southern Europe and Canada, with little direct change in globally averaged temperature. Given the quasiregularity of the 11-year solar cycle, our findings may help improve decadal climate predictions for highly populated extratropical regions.
Now does that look like a forecast of a new LIA?
Rule 1: Always look at the original source
Rule 2: Do not believe media reports without checking

stevo
October 10, 2011 5:01 pm

It’s quite sickening to see comments advocating physical violence against specific people, and then lots of other comments endorsing them. Do you think it makes you look clever to host such people?

RoyFOMR
October 10, 2011 5:03 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP.”
Correct Mosh. To the third rock from the sun I believe.

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 5:14 pm

I am quite skeptical that Europe is in for 20-30 years of cooling, or anything approaching a “Little Ice Age”. They may get a few bad winters in a row (not all due to La Nina by the way), but by the next sizable El Nino, it will be forgotten. Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600. It would nice and tidy if it did, but that would be too easy. Related to this, those who have been following the ocean levels have noted a bit of a drop these past few years. Have you noted where all that water went, and how much energy was transferred from ocean to atmosphere to get it there? GRACE knows. Hint: it didn’t go into building up glaciers. What does this have to do with Europe’s weather? Everything.

geo
October 10, 2011 5:18 pm

This is terrible news!! Everybody knows the Met office gets it exactly wrong!

October 10, 2011 5:23 pm

clipe says:
October 10, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Palm trees of Rothesay, Scotland.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rothesay_gardens_-_geograph.org.uk_-_799345.jpg
Sailed on The Waverley from Glasgow to Rothesay (1964ish) as a wee boy. Was stunned to see, live and in colour, real Palm trees.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Those are not palm trees, they are New Zealand cabbage trees
“Cabbage trees are one of the most widely cultivated New Zealand natives and are very popular in Europe, Britain and the U.S. In the U.K. they are known as Torquay palm.”
They are very hardy plants and easily survive snow.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-plants/cabbage-tree-ti-kouka/

October 10, 2011 5:23 pm

Imagine that. I would have never thought that the northern hemisphere would be so different than the southern.

stevo
October 10, 2011 5:25 pm

[SNIP: SteveO your act is wearing thin. When you learn the difference between hyperbole and the real threats made against climate skeptics, come back. Continue in this vein and you will be snipped. –REP]

October 10, 2011 5:33 pm

steven mosher says on October 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm

The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.

Notwithstanding the unassociated assertions and filibustering preceding this last statement above, but, what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?
.

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 5:34 pm

philincalifornia says:
October 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:48 am
So what I want to know from the climate boffins is exactlty how much CO2 we need to inject into the atmosphere to make things like the Little Ice Age a practical impossibility in the future.
============================
I think that R. Gates considers this to be his particular field of specialty. I’m expecting that he will be able to tell you to within 10ppm.
______
? Too many variables. I think it’s pretty apparent that the last “Little Ice Age” was likely solar-caused in origin, and remarkably, and surprisingly (to the ignornant), even the much beloved Michael Mann has stated as much. See:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/solar/MaunderMin04Shindell.pdf
More remarkable perhaps to some would be this quote from this study by Michael Mann:
“These results provide evidence that relatively
small solar forcing may play a significant
role in century-scale NH winter climate
change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures
over the NH continents during portions
of the 15th through the 17th centuries
(sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and
warmer temperatures during the 12th through
14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm
Period) may have been influenced by longterm
solar variations.”
Wow! How could it be? You must admit, some of you are surprised that such words could have been written by Michael Mann. The level of your surprise (I would suggest) is in direct proportion to your inability to see the bigger picture. Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600.

October 10, 2011 5:56 pm

Gates quotes Mann:
“This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period)…”
“Putative”??? [That means ‘supposed’]. Mann is still pushing his repeatedly debunked fiction that the MWP didn’t happen. But if there is anything close to settled climate science, it is the historical fact of the MWP, which is ubiquitous in numerous records, and as ice core evidence from both hemispheres.

Editor
October 10, 2011 6:04 pm

N.B.: Off Topic.
pauline says:
October 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm

Katla, eartquake swarm 5 days ago. Sounds like it might erupt? icelandic authorities seem concerned

Saw it, it was interesting, but low intensity. It’s back to typical activity of late now, see
http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/myrdalsjokull/
I doubt anyone is expecting that to move up the eruption date.

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 6:06 pm

Smokey,
You’re missing the bigger picture. Mann admitted that the sun influenced the Little Ice Age and the MWP (putative or not, he admitted it was warm period)! This should be headlines for some skeptics who fail to grasp the bigger context. I would suggest, this failure comes about from an over-reaction against any acceptance of the possibility that a 40% increase in CO2 could have any impact on Earth’s climate.

Latitude
October 10, 2011 6:18 pm

R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:06 pm
I would suggest, this failure comes about from an over-reaction against any acceptance of the possibility that a 40% increase in CO2 could have any impact on Earth’s climate.
===================================================
Gates, if you have one drop of water – increase it 40% – you have less than 1 1/2 drops of water….
It’s relative…..

October 10, 2011 6:19 pm

Steven Mosher said:
“The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.”
If you can ignore hundreds of records from every continent, and dismiss them all as regional phenomena, how come you believe the opposite proposition (that the climate, contrary to the entire geological record of the Earth’s history, has stayed exactly flat for a thousand years) based on the evidence of one single tree?

RoHa
October 10, 2011 6:30 pm

Another little ice age?
We’re doomed.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 10, 2011 6:34 pm

R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Smokey,
You’re missing the bigger picture. Mann admitted that the sun influenced the Little Ice Age and the MWP (putative or not, he admitted it was warm period)! This should be headlines for some skeptics who fail to grasp the bigger context. I would suggest, this failure comes about from an over-reaction against any acceptance of the possibility that a 40% increase in CO2 could have any impact on Earth’s climate.
R., Your fingernails are not digging into that slippery slope very well. And the skritching racket is very annoying. Your attempt at exoneration is ludicrous.

More Soylent Green!
October 10, 2011 6:40 pm

R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Smokey,
You’re missing the bigger picture. Mann admitted that the sun influenced the Little Ice Age and the MWP (putative or not, he admitted it was warm period)! This should be headlines for some skeptics who fail to grasp the bigger context. I would suggest, this failure comes about from an over-reaction against any acceptance of the possibility that a 40% increase in CO2 could have any impact on Earth’s climate.

So now it’s just a possibility? Have you alerted Dr. Mann or the IPCC?
BTW: Have you accepted the possibility it’s having an immeasurable impact upon the climate?
Have you accepted the possibility fact that nobody has shown any evidence that the current climate has not exceeded the range of natural variation?
Have you accepted the fact that nobody has shown any evidence that the climate models accurately model the actual climate?

J.H.
October 10, 2011 7:04 pm

The UK Met forecasts a colder winter…. Okay, there’s gonna be no snow in England this year and wear yer bathers…. It’s gonna be Hot hot hot….;-)
Seriously though, Benny Peiser is the only guy that is thinking clearly and applying scientific understanding in this issue, when he says….”I would strongly advise not to rely on any 20-30 year winter forecasts……..The point is that nobody really understands the basic feedbacks and climate dynamics that drive annual winter variability, let alone that long in advance.”
Skeptics do science….. all the rest do politics instead.

October 10, 2011 7:12 pm

Gates,
You believe whatever you want to believe:
“Mann admitted that the sun influenced the Little Ice Age and the MWP (putative or not, he admitted it was warm period)!”
But the word “putative” changes the meaning entirely, to mean ‘the LIA and the supposedly warm MWP.’
And I remind you that thirteen years after MBH98, which mendaciously attempted to erase the LIA and the MWP, Mann still stonewalls requests for his complete methodology, data, metadata and code. The scientific method requires transparency, therefore Mann is acting like an anti-scientist. As are the rest of the “Team”. They are pseudo-scientific climate charlatans, in it for the money, the prestige, and for their personal aggrandizement.
I’m just pointing out what they, and you, won’t.

Roger Knights
October 10, 2011 7:24 pm

Peter H says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Expect a year of record global warmth soon is my prediction.

Wanna bet? Here’s where:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743901
Intrade’s latest odds say there’s only a 30% chance of this (2012 being the warmest year on record) happening. I’ve bet over $400 that it won’t happen, and I’m willing to bet more. See you there.
You can also bet on whether 2012 will be among the five warmest years on record (per GISS, like the prior bet). Intrade’s odds on that happening are 50%. Again, I have over $400 bet that this won’t happen. Here’s the link:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=706205

October 10, 2011 7:31 pm

Come on!
These over the top predictions are commonly wrong.After all it is rare to have such a sustained chill during the interglacial period.
I would be interested if Britain ends up with the “average” winter.I wonder how they would be able to explain it away?

October 10, 2011 8:06 pm

Speaking of Ice Ages, does everyone know how quickly the temperature is dropping on the West Coast of the US? Oregon’s coastal zone is cooling at the rate of 37.1 degrees F per century (Minus 20.6 deg C per century). Coastal Washington state, and northern and mid-state of California are dropping like a rock, also.
At this rate of cooling, Oregon will be in a perpetual icy state by 2050, with an average temperature of 32 deg F or zero deg C.
See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=9&year=2011&filter=12&state=35&div=1
Adjust the “State” and “Climate Division” selectors as necessary.
(/sarc, well, I’m not quite sure on this one. Maybe off, but then, maybe not!! The data shows a very rapid cooling over the past 8 years. )

Werner Brozek
October 10, 2011 8:45 pm

“R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm
You must admit, some of you are surprised that such words could have been written by Michael Mann.”
Not really.
Phil Jones also said:
“There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.”
If you really wish to surprise us, show us where either Michael Mann or Phil Jones agree that either the LIA or MWP were global.

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 8:54 pm

Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm
R., Your fingernails are not digging into that slippery slope very well. And the skritching racket is very annoying. Your attempt at exoneration is ludicrous.
——————————
No need to exonerate anyone. Mann has displayed the fact that he understands the role of the sun in creating events such as the LIA, and also understands how pushing the level of CO2 beyond anything seen in at least 800,000 years might also affect the climate. Now, it appears we might get the chance to find out which one the climate is more sensitive to…or perhaps it will be a zero-sum game for a few decades.

Dreadnought
October 10, 2011 9:02 pm

I hate these exceptionally cold winters in England – they wreak havoc with our golfing, and engender eye-watering energy bills (inflated by stealth CO2 taxes).
The only good things about them are sledging, and sticking it on the warmingists. On balance, though…. I definitely prefer lots of golf and lower bills.

October 10, 2011 9:35 pm

jimmi_the_dalek is quite right:
Rule 1: Always look at the original source
Rule 2: Do not believe media reports without checking

As an ink-stained wretch myself (and CAGW skeptic), I wholeheartedly agree. In this case, the various news outlets appear to have just lifted each other’s articles — no original research added. And the UK press is especially untrustworthy– yes, even worse than the American press!
And it all appears to go back to Benny Peiser, whose statement linking the Nature Geoscience paper to a supposed resurgence of the LIA was unsupported by anything in the actual article, which I read. I respectfully suggest Anthony look into this, as I quite admire his blog and hate to see misinformation get in here.

October 10, 2011 9:44 pm

_jim.
“Notwithstanding the unassociated assertions and filibustering preceding this last statement above, but, what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?”
The evidence for the MWP ( scant, questionable proxy evidence and non testable documentary evidence) is confined geographically. If you are suspect of extrapolating current thermometers over 1200 km, then you should be more suspect about a handful of proxies. Go look at any map of proxy locations. The LIA was confined to europe and had more to do with TSI changes, volcanic forcing and UV changes.
Neither of these has any bearing on the issue of AGW. That issue is
1. how MUCH warming will increased GHGs cause.
That question is logically and observationationally disconnected from both the LIA and the MWP.
despite what Mann and Gore say, they have nothing to do with AGW.

peakbear
October 10, 2011 10:02 pm

It isn’t the Gulf Stream that keeps the UK temperate really. It is due to our weather coming from the West really so off of the relatively warm Atlantic in winter and also due to the large scale planetary waves causing our weather to come from a SW direction on average. A significant contributor to these Rossby waves are the Rocky mountains, so we have the US to thank for some of our temperate climate.
When we get weather from the north it isn’t very temperate here as the last 2 winters have shown.

philincalifornia
October 10, 2011 10:04 pm

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Neither of these has any bearing on the issue of AGW. That issue is
1. how MUCH warming will increased GHGs cause.
That question is logically and observationationally disconnected from both the LIA and the MWP.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not at all Steven. Your posts have been particular bizarre today.
The data indicate that increased GHGs cause an amount of warming that may be slightly positive, may be close to zero, or may be zero or less, when compared with natural variation, such as the MWP.
Who are you trying to kid ??

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 10:38 pm

peakbear says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:02 pm
It isn’t the Gulf Stream that keeps the UK temperate really.
——-
No peak bear…it is…really. Shut down that lovely THC of which the Gulf Steam is part, and you’ll be getting bloody cold…really.

Espen
October 10, 2011 10:42 pm

It’s interesting to compare the recent warm period to the 16th century. The first half of that century was very warm, in fact the summer of 1540 may have been warmer than 2003 in Europe. But then it all changed and there was a series of ice cold winters, and at the same time there was a multi year extremely severe drought in the sw US.

R. Gates
October 10, 2011 10:44 pm

philincalifornia says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:04 pm
The data indicate that increased GHGs cause an amount of warming that may be slightly positive, may be close to zero, or may be zero or less…
—-
Uh, what kind of “warming” is “zero or less”? Negative warming? Is this some kind of tricky double-speak? GHG’s might cause negative warming…oh brother.

philincalifornia
October 10, 2011 11:01 pm

R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:44 pm
philincalifornia says:
October 10, 2011 at 10:04 pm
The data indicate that increased GHGs cause an amount of warming that may be slightly positive, may be close to zero, or may be zero or less…
—-
Uh, what kind of “warming” is “zero or less”? Negative warming? Is this some kind of tricky double-speak? GHG’s might cause negative warming…oh brother.
=================
Ha ha ha, kinda like ocean acidification-speak sorry. I’ll be more careful next time.

Streetcred
October 10, 2011 11:36 pm

Dodgy Geezer says:
October 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“…Britain should brace itself for another freezing winter with the return of La Niña, a climate phenomenon known to disrupt global weather, ministers have warned….”
Umm. If British Ministers tell you the sun goes down at night you should start preparing for 24 hours of daytime. They lie even when there is no need to, just to keep in habit. They are regularly beaten by bankers, estate agent and lawyers in truth contests. They would give Australian politicians a run for their money…
========================================
🙂 They wouldn’t even come close to our Prime Minister ‘Juliar’ and her pack of thieving lying sycophants.

October 10, 2011 11:50 pm

R. Gates says:
October 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I am quite skeptical that Europe is in for 20-30 years of cooling, or anything approaching a “Little Ice Age”.
************************************************************
The whole NH hemisphere is heading downhill pretty fast.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_30-90N_n_sua.png
CET records is a good proxy for NH record, global record follows the NH quite well. How to twist these facts will be interesting to watch.

October 11, 2011 12:02 am

From Jonathan Leake
Thanks to those who have commented on this article. However, there appears to be a common misunderstanding. My Sunday Times article was not about anthropogenic climate change. The phenomena mentioned in this article are natural and separate from climate change. They operate in parallel to climate change, in parallel to each other but, of course, each on very different time scales.
La Nina, for example, is really about weather. It’s part of a relatively short term natural cycle operating over periods of a few years.
It’s just one of many factors which together mean that weather is constantly showing a high level of variability. In other words, getting a cold winter or two does not tell us anything about climate change. It just tells us that weather changes a lot – which we already know.
Similarly, the research in Nature Geoscience about the changes in solar radiation, is also nothing to do with climate change. It’s an entirely separate effect happening in parallel. Scientists think its part of a 3-400 year cycle of changes in UV radiation. There’s a good article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065
and the original is here
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1282.html
It’s interesting to wonder if it will mitigate or amplify any effects from greenhouse gas emissions but I suspect no-one really knows yet.
The key point is that short term changes in the weather and long term changes in the climate are both driven by a complex mix of variables. Working out the most likely future trends is hard and takes long-term dedicated science. Reducing it all to an argument about climate change misses the real point which is that we should be trying to use the best science to assess objectively just how much of a problem all these effects really present to an increasingly crowded and interconnected world.
The science suggesting that the Earth faces significant warming remains very strong. If you disagree then you need good science to back your case. These other phenomena (La Nina, UV radiation etc) are interesting in their own right but are simply not relevant to that discussion.
Jonathan Leake

Shevva
October 11, 2011 12:11 am

And I was looking forward to snowless winters as promised. I’m gutted now as it appears the consensus that ‘Snow will be a thing of the past’ is incorrect and disappointing.
/Sarc

Espen
October 11, 2011 12:59 am

Jonathan Leake says:
October 11, 2011 at 12:02 am

The science suggesting that the Earth faces significant warming remains very strong.

Not really. The hard science part (about CO2 absorption) only suggests a moderate warming. We don’t really know for sure if even burning all the remaining known fossil fuels would be enough to compensate for a LIA-like multi century cold period.
The science that suggests significant warming is much “softer” science, based on incomplete computer models.

Reply to  Espen
October 11, 2011 2:35 am

Hi Jonathan, good to see you engaging here!
The two aspects ‘weather’ and ‘climate change’ are not so separate….firstly, the IPCC (now) defines climate change as ‘both’ natural and man-made combined…..the reason being that as you rightly point out, both occur in parallel, but they are not distinguishable. The problem lies with determining how much of the GHG effect, which is measured way up in the atmosphere as a radiative forcing effect actually gets through to a warming at the surface…IPCC models have large variations in this factor – between 2-3 times, hence the large variability in the estimates of warming from doubling CO2 of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
In order to tell which parameters of the models are the most accurate, the science has to look at the actual rise of temperatures over the last several decades to get a handle on the feedbacks – and here is where the controversy arises. In my book of 2009, ‘Chill’ (of which the Times was sent 4 copies over as many weeks as requested -but never reviewed!), I detail that controversy within the published science, much of which the IPCC downplayed and concluded that a largely natural ‘signal’ over the latter part of the 20th century had been misinterpreted as support for the higher sensitivity in some models. The test of whether I was right would come when the natural cycle turned down – as it has done, and lo, not only does the UK, USA, and China get severe winters as predictable, but the oceans stop increasing their heat content and tropospheric temperatures flatten out. If the cycle continues to fall as the Sun goes into a grand minimum, then it will get cold for 30-40 years. That is also ‘climate change’, even by IPCC definitions, but the AGW component actually works to ameliorate the cold – just at the time when the world needs its food production to stay bouyant (I am not hopeful of the latter).

October 11, 2011 1:51 am

steven mosher says: October 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm

The LIA was limited in geographical distribution. As was the MWP. Interesting problems that have nothing to do with global warming.

**************
Smokey says: October 10, 2011 at 1:01 pm “Steven Mosher says:”
Stephen Wilde says: October 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm “Steven Mosher said:”
John Peter says: October 10, 2011 at 1:34 pm “…Steven Mosher may wish peruse http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php before he makes this statement again at least with regards to MWP.”
Matt G says: October 10, 2011 at 3:01 pm “1) How can this only be regional when during the instrumental record, the same regions concerned have behaved like wise with global temperatures. 2) Instrumental records since the LIA (1850?s) have showed increased temperatures in all global site regions.”
Robert Austin says: October 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm “steven mosher says:”
RoyFOMR says: October 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm “Steven Mosher says:”
_Jim says: October 10, 2011 at 5:33 pm “steven mosher says”
Ron House says: October 10, 2011 at 6:19 pm “Steven Mosher said:”
**************
steven mosher says: October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm

_jim. “what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?”
The evidence for the MWP ( scant, questionable proxy evidence and non testable documentary evidence) is confined geographically.

Steve, there’s a lot of good scientists listed here, who responded to you because we appreciate you. But the evidence of this list in itself says that you are simply not paying attention to the evidence in this instance.
There is global evidence for the MWP (however much you may regard it as “inferior”, it still exists) and you have been pointed towards some of it.

D. Patterson
October 11, 2011 3:17 am

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
_jim.
“Notwithstanding the unassociated assertions and filibustering preceding this last statement above, but, what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?”
The evidence for the MWP ( scant, questionable proxy evidence and non testable documentary evidence) is confined geographically. If you are suspect of extrapolating current thermometers over 1200 km, then you should be more suspect about a handful of proxies. Go look at any map of proxy locations. The LIA was confined to europe and had more to do with TSI changes, volcanic forcing and UV changes. </blockquote"
To support your sweeping assertions, please list the Earth's geographic locations by Marsden Square which you have found to be devoid of evidence of 1. the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and/or 2. the Little Ice Age (LIA). Number ranges will be adequate for this purpose.

D. Patterson
October 11, 2011 3:18 am

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
_jim.
“Notwithstanding the unassociated assertions and filibustering preceding this last statement above, but, what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?”
The evidence for the MWP ( scant, questionable proxy evidence and non testable documentary evidence) is confined geographically. If you are suspect of extrapolating current thermometers over 1200 km, then you should be more suspect about a handful of proxies. Go look at any map of proxy locations. The LIA was confined to europe and had more to do with TSI changes, volcanic forcing and UV changes.


To support your sweeping assertions, please list the Earth’s geographic locations by Marsden Square which you have found to be devoid of evidence of 1. the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and/or 2. the Little Ice Age (LIA). Number ranges will be adequate for this purpose.

Espen
October 11, 2011 4:20 am

I wrote: at the same time there was a multi year extremely severe drought in the sw US.
Here’s a paper about the “16th century mega-drought”:
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.TRL/.NADA2004/pdsiatlashtml/pdsiatlaspdfs/stahle2.pdf

Smoking Frog
October 11, 2011 4:41 am

richard telford October 10, 2011 at 11:41 am
I don’t think David Whitehouse understands probabilities. If I predict that there is only a one in six chance of a six occurring when a fair die is rolled, am I incorrect when a six does occur?
No, of course not, but if you bet against a six, and a six occurs, you were wrong to bet against it. You couldn’t have known that you were wrong, but you were wrong nonetheless.

October 11, 2011 5:08 am

steven mosher says:
October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
……..
Mr. Mosher
-It is assumed that atmospheric temperatures do not (and most likely can not) affect paleo- and archaeo- -magnetic dating samples.
-Dr. Loehle compiled his global temperature anomaly independently of my analysis of geomagnetic records. Two sets of data show good agreement covering period of two millennia, both indicating existence MWP ant LIA.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
This is not to say that the geomagnetic field changes controls global temperature. However, the geomagnetic field does, to a degree, mirror solar magnetic activity, not necessarily sunspot but stronger bursts of the coronal mass ejection, CMEs.
I have tracked output from the GM station at Tromso, Norway, since the beginning of the year (graphs 5&6 in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MFc.htm ) and they do show that after every solar CME’ burst, the geomagnetic field went up by a small notch.
How these changes are, if at all, linked to the temperature changes is uncertain, but evidence is sufficiently strong not to be ignored.
We may not have the answer, but that is not a good reason not search for it.

bob paglee
October 11, 2011 7:10 am

Will the warmists at University of East Anglia then repent?

Jean Parisot
October 11, 2011 7:20 am

I don’t think David Whitehouse understands probabilities. If I predict that there is only a one in six chance of a six occurring when a fair die is rolled, am I incorrect when a six does occur?
its a d20

October 11, 2011 7:42 am

Thanks to this post. If happens that this will really take place then Europeans must read this one. Good reading.

phlogiston
October 11, 2011 10:57 am

Dave Springer says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:48 am
So what I want to know from the climate boffins is exactlty how much CO2 we need to inject into the atmosphere to make things like the Little Ice Age a practical impossibility in the future.
The Marinoan and Varangian global snowball-earth ice ages occurred around 650-750 MYa during which atmospheric CO2 levels were >10,000 ppm, so our climate boffins will have to aim north of this figure. In fact the Huronian ice age at around 2 billion years ago took place with an atmosphere at least 10 % CO2.

phlogiston
October 11, 2011 11:05 am

steven mosher says: October 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
_jim. “what do you cite as objective proof or evidence for this statement?”
The evidence for the MWP ( scant, questionable proxy evidence and non testable documentary evidence) is confined geographically.

To echo what many others (Lucy Skywalker, MattG etc) have pointed out, the CO2 science website has a database of (to date) 1015 published scientific papers – i.e. ones that got past your pals’ review – attesting to the MWP everywhere on earth.
http://www.co2science.org/
To quote from this website frontpage link to the MWP published paper database:
Medieval Warm Period Project”
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1015 individual scientists from 584 research institutions in 44 different countries … and counting! This issue’s Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Rumailiah River Floodplain, North-western Coast of Syria. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project’s database, click here.

phlogiston
October 11, 2011 11:15 am

Jonathan Leake says:
October 11, 2011 at 12:02 am
From Jonathan Leake
Thanks to those who have commented on this article. However, there appears to be a common misunderstanding. My Sunday Times article was not about anthropogenic climate change. The phenomena mentioned in this article are natural and separate from climate change. They operate in parallel to climate change, in parallel to each other but, of course, each on very different time scales.
La Nina, for example, is really about weather. It’s part of a relatively short term natural cycle operating over periods of a few years.

Concerning La Nina being “just weather” that’s not the story we get from many warmista contributors here. Not so long ago (while the earth still was warming) it was proposed that continued warming could result in a continuous el Nino state. (ENSO is a nonlinear oscillator so this is an inherent impossiblity.) More recently Bob Tisdale posted with detailed evidence that the warming since the 1970s is almost all attributable to an increased prevalence of el Nino events. The warmistas replied in unison that “el Nino is the mechanism of CO2 warming”.
Bob Tisdale also points out ( http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/) that alternate warming and cooling phases of the PDO correspond to periods of alternate dominance of el Nino and La Nina.
So ENSO cannot be claimed as “just weather” – it is one of the earth’s most dominant climate drivers.

October 11, 2011 12:58 pm

Correction – it was Eyjafjallajøkull that had a protracted conniption in 1918, Katla erupted from 12 – 05NOV1918, during which it ejected 0.7km3 of ash.

kwik
October 11, 2011 1:58 pm

John A says:
October 10, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“It has very little to do with the Gulf Stream.”
What on earth are you talking about???? I have lived in northern Norway many years. Along the coast it is quite mild in the winther. (For a Norwegian). Go straight east some miles and the temperature plummets to Siberian levels. Where do you get your facts from? Al Gore?

Dodgy Geezer
October 11, 2011 2:19 pm

Dodgy Geezer says:
British Ministers … would give Australian politicians a run for their money…
Streetcred says:
They wouldn’t even come close to our Prime Minister ‘Juliar’ and her pack of thieving lying sycophants.
Aha, you Southern Hemisphere teams.. think you’re the bees knees…
Our politicians have just cost every family in the land £2000+ per year in inflation. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8819254/Families-lose-2000-to-inflation-and-low-pay.html
Our lot will bring our country to it’s knees before your crowd can even put a carbon tax on. Professionals? Your lot haven’t even started printing loads of extra money yet….

October 11, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: coming Little Ice Age. Some things that mainstream media forgets to mention…
Wolf Creek ski resort in Southwest Colorado, where we live, announced the “earliest ever recorded” opening of the skiing season, due to 8 inches of snow that fell on October 8th.
Meanwhile, traveling on “working vacation”, we experienced yesterday freezing temperatures in Cetinje, historic former capital of Montenegro, where normal average temperature in October should be above +20 degrees Celsius.
Last two or three years were marked by the record fish and lobster harvest all over the world. Fish and lobster eat creatures that eat phytoplankton and sea weeds, while phytoplankton and see weeds eat… carbon dioxide and sunlight.
Never forget: Al Gore inherited millions from his father, who made his fortune in tobacco industry, As Russians say, “Whose cow is to moo here?”

Brian H
October 11, 2011 4:36 pm

Hugh Davis says:
October 10, 2011 at 11:39 am
It’s going to be pretty grim here in Britain when 40% of our conventional power stations have been closed down under EU edicts, and Chris Huhne’s windmills stop spinning (as wind turbines always do in utra-cold anticyclonic winter weather).

Indeed! But be consoled that you will still be performing a useful function. That of a “horrible example”: what happens when a country buys into and forms economic policy based on the cAGW thesis.
Thanks for your sacrifice!

Andrew Harding
Editor
October 11, 2011 4:50 pm

“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”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. –The Independent, 20 March 2000”.
Hopefully Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, will now be Dr David Viner, retired, former research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.
Reality can now, get a look in, and please will any alleged climate scientists stop confusing weather with climate.

October 11, 2011 9:29 pm

Actually if you look at the big picture, Earth is a natural ice planet, obviously the Northern Hemisphere is more effected by glacial periods, that only occur after years of cold winters and short summers. Warming has occurred before a mini ice age, like the Medieval Warm Period.
And the Gulf Stream stops or is diverted. Problem is human civilization has mainly been treated to an interglacial. So all the BS about sea rising etc., is far from the reality. In a full glacial period
sea levels drop dramatically, as more water is taken up by ice sheets, and less evaporation of course. But – despite the larger population now, yes, a mini ice age will be detrimental to growing some foods. Not impossible, but highly likely. All these alarmist are saying is ‘We told you so?’
But the reasons are bent as the crooked scientists that say warming is caused by human activity.
They have just passed the carbon tax in the House of Reps, it will pass the Senate, but the vote in the lower house was 74 – 72. One Liberal MP had been banned for 24 hours, and if she had been there the vote would have been 74-73. Watch out for more fireworks, as it seems the Kyoto
11 conference won’t happen.

October 11, 2011 11:55 pm

Alexander Feht says:
October 11, 2011 at 2:25 pm
we experienced yesterday freezing temperatures in Cetinje , historic former capital of Montenegro….
I hope you went up the
Lovcen mountain from where on a clear day you can see most of Montenegro, Italy, Croatia and Albania. If you are still around don’t miss the old town of Kotor . Btw. it was snowing to the east of the capital Podgorica only a day earlier.

Brian H
October 12, 2011 12:50 am

Andrew Harding says:
October 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. –The Independent, 20 March 2000″.
Hopefully Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, will now be Dr David Viner, retired, former research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

Not a prayer. His half-baked hyperbole was in support of The Narrative™ of the Noble (Common) Cause. That’s a free pass and Permanent Falsification Exemption. Unless the mockery gets too loud, and he becomes an embarrassment. But the CAGW Team is almost impervious to embarrassment, of course. It also has no shame, or willingness to be held accountable, or …

October 12, 2011 8:51 am

More snow in Mediterranean country of Montenegro:
http://www.vijesti.me/zoom-zoom/
Apple tree

Ulric Lyons
October 12, 2011 6:36 pm

“The fact is that nobody knows if the forthcoming winter will be severe or mild.”
From forecasting short term solar variables, the cold blasts can be timed with great accuracy. AO and NAO status strongly affect their severity. For last winter, I saw below normals from the last week in Nov till Xmas, with normals through Jan/Feb, but with a cool spot later in Feb (UK).
I`m looking at one month in particular being well below normals this coming winter.

Pete
October 12, 2011 9:38 pm

Sun Spot says:
October 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm
@Dave Springer says: October 10, 2011 at 11:48 am
“I agree with your statement. An addition of CO2 to our atmosphere is not ony benificial, it might save us from the catastrophy of an ice age. It’s pathetic that science spend billions on researching CO2′s effect on weather/climate and we still don’t have a clue as to what causes an icae age. Its an ice age that will kill billions not CO2.”
CO2 in any amount isn’t going to stop an ice age from coming. No one has been able to adequately explain why there is a rapid collapse into an ice age (in as little as a matter of decades) when CO2 levels are at their peak for that interglacial and don’t decline substantially until about 3000 years after the start of that ice age (and, no, Milankovitch cycles cannot explain that sudden descent). If CO2 theory was correct, then there is no way that an ice age could start that rapidly (almost instantly in geologic, and even climatic, terms) with all that warming potential from CO2.

phlogiston
October 13, 2011 2:40 am

bushbunny says
October 11, 2011, 9:29 pm
Actually if you look at the big picture, earth is a natural ice planet…
The present configuration of continents brought about by tectonic movement favours cold and ice. The poles are opposites – the north pole is a sea surrounded by land, the south pole an island continent surrounded by ocean. In the case of the south pole, as has been explained by Bill Illis, the Antarctic is isolated by the circumpolar current from any warming effect from currents from the north. (Before Antarctica broke from Africa a southward current warmed Antarctica which was then fully forested.)
At the north pole the polar lake configuration gives rise to instability and potential positive feedbacks and consequent oscillation in the extent of both sea ice and glaciation and snow cover (i.e. it is an excitable medium) thus the endless fun in guessing sea ice from year to year. A large enough oscillation swing is able to set off a transition to a colder glacial period – hopping from one attrator to another.
Since the continents move tectonically at about the speed that your fingernails grow, it will be a while before this situation changes. Talk of global warming is thus indeed a tad premature.

October 15, 2011 9:27 pm

Hi, phlogiston on 13 Oct @ 2 am. However, recall the North Pole is not a continent like the Antarctic. The Arctic Circle effects lots of countries and islands, especially with the shorter and longer days of sunlight? But Australia, not New Zealand, has been occupied by humans for about 50 – 60,000 years and we are just out of the ring of fire. The only glacial regions known are in Tasmania that was joined to the mainland until the last full glacial period ended around 10,000 years ago, and on top of the Australian Alps that are a high altitude. But Australia was also joined to Papua New Guinea too.
However, the Panama canal wasn’t built then, maybe that will keep invigorating the flow of the Gulf Stream that was affected during the last ice age and helped to freeze those land masses by stopping or diverting its warmer waters?

Brian H
October 15, 2011 9:55 pm

@bushbunny;
The Canal isn’t a Channel. Very little water moves through the locks, etc. Certainly not enough to “invigorate the Gulf Stream”.

October 15, 2011 10:21 pm

Hi Brian, well it was a thought. The latest is that the Gulf Stream has stopped or diverted because of the oil spill in the Gulf? I am not that informed but if the oil kept to the surface waters, it would drive the warmer gulf stream flow down further? Maybe some one can comment on that?

Brian H
Reply to  bushbunny
October 15, 2011 10:40 pm

No, that’s not the latest. Oldie-von-moldie nonsense, long debunked. The GS is just fine. And the oil pretty much vanished, much faster than was thought possible. Seems the non-stop natural seeps in the Gulf have bred some hungry and efficient bacteria, who accepted the BP contribution as “business as usual”.

%d bloggers like this: