There’s a story about solar cycle 25, and a potential “mini ice age” in the UK Daily Mail by David Rose that is making headlines today, even hitting the Drudge Report. The headline is:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
The graph (from the Daily Mail article) below looks familiar.
From the story:
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
Readers may recall that WUWT had this story on January 25th via David Archibald: First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years The graph he provided matches almost exactly.
He wrote then:
Using the Livingston and Penn Solar Cycle 25 amplitude estimate, this is what the solar cycle record is projected to look like:
And, yes, that means the end of the Modern Warm Period.
The Daily Mail article also says:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
That’s essentially true, as we can see in this woodfortrees.org graph of HadCUT3 data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend
Of course, the linear trend line may be sensitive to the endpoints, and it has an ever so slight rise to it, but there’s no denying that that have not been peaks larger than 1997/98 which was an super El Niño event. The 2010 El El Niño didn’t come close.
When 2012 data is added, I suspect that trend line will be downward much like the trend for the last ten years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
The Daily Mail article continues:
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
The solar Ap geomagnetic index is the lowest in the record, and suggests the sun is lagging:
Nature (the reality, not the journal) will be the final arbiter of truth in this. We live in interesting times.
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive…
Great harm is done when untruths are propagated – even in all innocence. Billions wasted on “Global Warming” – a phantasm – merely natural cycles. Billions squandered on the Euro currency – a fiction that all those countries can have the same economic cycle without a unifying government. Great suffering, unjust and penal taxation.
More Truth, less hubris. Please.
One of my golfing friends describes the Daily Mail as “The Suicide Gazette”, because after you’ve read it that’s often how you feel. Think of it as a necessary right-wing balance against the leftist drivel of the Grauniad (Private Eye’s clever nickname for the Guardian because of the number of spelling mistakes it carries). Much of what the Mail says is true but much also needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Just like the work of Mann & Jones, this story needs to be checked out against the original data.
Rhoda Ramirez says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Careful – the Met is short for the Metropolitan Police Force of London, the Met Office is the weather forecaster, two totally different organizations! I fully agree with your sentiments, however this is a political organization now, run by those with an agenda to change the world into one they wish to see! I dare say they are noble minded, but they are misguided. We have a vast social benefits system in the UK that is dragging the country to its knees, with part of a generation raised on benefits, creating a class that will always vote for those who offer more benefits, just the way they want the world to be, the developing world on subsistance agriculture/production/industry, whilst the world leaders enrich themselves as Orwellian do-gooders! Nature not man rules this planet & the sooner they realise it the better for all of us!
It’s good that this has appeared in the Daily Mail. Although it’s a favourite target of “leftier” papers like the Guardian and Independent, the Mail is widely read in “Middle England”, and has rather more sales than either. The last survey of shrinking newspaper sales I saw, in fact, found that the Mail’s sales are contracting at a rather slower rate than either of the two I just mentioned.
James Delingpole has a blog article on it, too, here, along with a little follow-up on ‘Dr David Viner – the University of Easy Access climatologist responsible for the most-read-ever story in the Independent when, in 2000, he famously deployed his meteorological expertise to tell us: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”‘. It’s nice that he hasn’t abandoned climate, as he threatened to do.
“Water Scarcity” question:
Is there any good research on water availability during colder periods?
Winters can be very dry … and many cold regions are very dry.
Is there any good data and/or argument in this area?
Joe
Do you really believe we know the average global temperature back to 1850 to tenths of a degree?
Are you really worried that we have had three decades of ‘above average’ temperatures based on the belief that we know the global temperature back to 1850?
tonyb
This may be of some interest to Dr. Ryan Maue
According to the NOAA’s assessment the Atlantic hurricane activity is directly related to the Equatorial Atlantic’s SST; neither of which is predictable.
However that not may be the case.
Comparing the NOAA’s Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index with the ‘Atlantic Hurricane probability index’ based on the North Atlantic other historical data (also available from the NOAA) it could be concluded that the hurricane activity will (on average) stay just above the normal for at least a decade.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AHA.htm
Loos like R. Gates is throwing in the towel on the CAGW scam.
So, move South?
So what is the mechanism that fuels this alarmist media propaganda? The “accepted” solar science has no way of predicting what might happen next year, let alone out to 2100.
There is absolutely no evidence from “recognized” or pseudo type science that suggests another Maunder type minimum ahead.
AMP theory which can hindcast the Holocene suggests a weak grand minimum ending after SC25. The plateau of warmth will continue for another 1000 years after that, not withstanding Milankovitch type influences.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/61
[snip . . OTT ]
I ask, what evidence do you [Gates]have for claiming we have the highest levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O in at least 800,000 years? What’s your authority? Give us links. Put up or shut up.
Three weeks ago, a certain Steve Jones wrote piece of fluff in the Telegraph entitled “If carbon dioxide isn’t a worry, nitrous oxide could not possibly offer any threat… Right?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/steve-jones/8989117/If-carbon-dioxide-isnt-a-worry-nitrous-oxide-could-not-possibly-offer-any-threat…-right.html#disqus_thread
There were plenty of comments refuting the Jones allegations, none of which he answered. Here is my assessment of the article:
“-a greenhouse gas
several times more potent than CO2.”
So bloody what! This Emeritus professor expects us to panic over N2O (also know as laughing gas), which represents just 0.3 parts per million by volume {ppmv} or 0.00003% in our atmosphere? Really?
We know CO2 is somewhere around 390 ppmv or 0.039%; that’s 1300 times as much CO2 as N2O in the atmosphere.
For the purposes of this calculation let us agree that N2O is seven times more potent than CO2, thus there would have to be 185 times more N2O present in the atmosphere to match the paltry global warming potential of CO2, a very useful plant food!
After 100 years of artificial fertiliser manufacture, are we now to believe that less than one third of one part per million by volume of N2O should concern us?
To return to the sarcastic subtext “climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by charlatans”, I reply “climate always changes and always will”, but it is certainly a charlatan who postulates natural climate change as being CO2 driven or that N2O is a threat. ———————
To return to my original question to you, about highest levels etc., perhaps I should change it to “ What evidence do you have that these “Highest” levels of gases actually have any effect on global temperatures, up or down and if so does it matter?
After all, you do travel to warmer & sunnier climes when you go on holiday, don’t you? Why’d you do that if a slightly warmer planet were bad for humans?
Joanna above quotes the statement “According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830.”
This is now all over the internet.
Unfortunately the Met Office actually estimated that there was an 8% chance of that occurring , i.e a 92% chance of it NOT occurring!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
Now I doubt if MET are as accurate as that – but at least they do not get it backwards.
Nick in Vancouver said: “Despite spending millions of pounds on AGW the UK is still at the same latitude as Labrador, what gives????”
The UK isn’t due to be festooned with wind turbines for nothing. They are also propellers. Once we have enough we’re going to put power through them and move south for the winter.
No amount of evidence will change the Warmistas’ beliefs. There are vested interests and hidden agendas at work here, and power and money are in play.
For those having trouble getting the original Met Office page to load, (Over at the talkshop, we have thought of a better use for their supercomputer):
Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming
23 January 2012 – New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.
Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun’s activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).
Gareth Jones, a climate change detection scientist with the Met Office, said: “This research shows that the most likely change in the Sun’s output will not have a big impact on global temperatures or do much to slow the warming we expect from greenhouse gases.
“It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”
The study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: “Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21st Century.”
During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a ‘grand maximum’ and recent studies have suggested this level of activity is at or nearing its end.
Mike Lockwood, an expert in solar studies at the University of Reading, used this as a starting point for looking at the most probable changes in the Sun’s activity over the 21st Century.
Met Office scientists then placed the projections into one climate model to see how they may impact temperatures.
Professor Lockwood said: “The 11-year solar cycle of waxing and waning sunspot numbers is perhaps the best known way the Sun changes, but longer term changes in its brightness are more important for possible influences on climate.
“The most likely scenario is that we’ll see an overall reduction of the Sun’s activity compared to the 20th Century, such that solar outputs drop to the values of the Dalton Minimum (around 1820). The probability of activity dropping as low as the Maunder Minimum – or indeed returning to the high activity of the 20th Century – is about 8%. The findings rely on the assumption that the Sun’s past behaviour is a reasonable guide for future solar activity changes.”
Very scary situation.
We know we live in a interglacial and we know it will be a new ice age sooner or later.
Last glacial period was about 5 C colder than today.
Despite we have now for more than a century tried to do some geoengineering with releasing wast amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does it seems that CO2 is not potent enough to save us from next ice age. The CO2 warming is not big enough! Hansen et al are wrong.
Next ice age will kill billions according to Holdren:
http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/112317/
/Sarc off
Joseph, when they are discussing their list of subjects they should well consider the BENEFITS of a magical molecue which produces more bio growth (green) on less water, on less land every time its abundance within the atmosphere is increased, the very thing these blackbeards wish to have less of, as they should also consider the benefits of inexpensive energy.
“The fact is that for this summit climate security is the final topic to be discussed:”
The Financial Crisis (nothing can help the economy like inexpensive energy)
Food Crisis (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Migration
Energy Crisis (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy,what energy crisis )
Water Scarcity (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Biodiversity and Ecosystem loss (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Desertification (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Natural Disasters and the ability to prepare for and recover from them (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy ) wealth enables one to recover, cheep energy, more food etc.
Achievement of the MDGs
Globalisation (cheap energy, lots of food can only make all problems easier to solve.)
Health Security (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Increased resilience at the national and global level (large part of the answer, more CO2 /inepensive energy )
Climate Security // maybe a large misnomer, as it may not exist.
Hmmm, my comment above is not as accurate as I thought – the MET office said the chance of dropping as low as the Maunder minimum is about 8%. The Daily Mail has interpreted this as saying that there is a 92% chance of getting a Dalton-like minimum. I think that is a dubious conclusion – it assumes there are only two possibilities – but it is not as much of a misinterpretation as I first thought.
UK Met Office global temperature forecast for 2012, I wonder if this will go in the FAILED BIN with a few other of their forecasts?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast
Keith Gordon
January’s SIDC SSN is most likely to be around 65 which is down on Nov’s = 96 and Dec’s = 73.
Dr. Hathaway December ‘prediction’ for SC24 max was just below 100 (see link below), I expect that he will be ‘marching his men’ down the hill again’.
There no need to remind anyone , even the most casual reader of this blog during last 2-3 years, that low SC24 &SC25 were predicted more than eight years ago, by a simple extrapolation:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
None of the methods described here or in any on line available paper or article can match in accuracy the results obtained from equations as quoted in the above link.
Are these really Mike Lockwood’s words?
“During the 20th Century solar activity increased to a ‘grand maximum’…”
As Leif tirelessy points out, this is very likely untrue. Lockwood must surely by aware of the work on SSN?
Sounds like the warmists are just preparing the next excuse for the models being wrong. “The Sun is offsetting our warming. You just wait until the Sun gets back to ‘normal’….”. So another 30-40 years added to the time when the models can be shown to be nonsense.
Meanwhile, I agree with those who say it is silly to counter the warming disaster scenario with a mini ice age disaster scenario. Let’s not have frostbite removing our noses to spite our faces.
All predictions of future climate should be taken with a grain of salt (or, in the case of a new LIA, many large lorryloads of salt to grit a few roads).
There must be lots of these power stations worldwide dumping waste heat into the water, which makes its way to the sea, warming the oceans a bit. Have the warmists taken this into account? It ought to reduce the warming attributable to CO2.
I’m with R Gates. I think we’ll see continued rising temperatures, but time will tell. If 2011 – 2020 is a lot cooler than 2001 – 2010, I’ll happily say I was wrong. Will the “skeptics”?
It’s important to keep the comment from Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center
for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute in mind:
“‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important.”
There are also a few solar scientists with whom “It will take a long battle to
convince…” that solar activity (monthly sun spot counts ) used to define
the Dalton and Maunder minimums is a meaningful harbinger of colder
tempertures on Earth.