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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We have a massive disconnect.
The sun was less active and temperatures fell significantly in the Sporer Minimum.The sun was less active in the Dalton Minimum and temperatures fell by something like 2 deg C. The sun was even less active in the Maunder Minimum and temperatures fell by even more. Yet now they tell us that “the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ ….. This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C“.
The correct scientific term for statements like that is “BS”.
Strangely, the BBC has neglected to mention any of this…
No problem for the UK, thanks to the Blessed Chris Huhne (Energy Secretary)
We can attach subsidised heat elements to our tens of thousands of Wind Mills, converting them to fan heaters (should be really warm in the Welsh and Scottish hills). The windmils would be powered by er, um,………….. other Wind Mills, a virtuous circle.
Who said Huhne does not understand science or engineering?
Nick in Vancouver says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:00 pm
//////////////////////////////////
Quite so.
AND the UK now has had this blast from the past for 4 years in succession. A rare event indeed.
I bet Viner is regretting that statement.
“Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.”
This comment absolutely cracks me up. What in God’s name do they think creates weather on this planet in the first place? No Sun = No weather. Sun creates heat, heats up the land, which heats up the air above it. It is very basic meteorology.
For those of you not from the UK, please remember the first rule of UK life:
‘If the Daiily Mail says something, it’s because they think it will sell more newspapers and they won’t be sued for libel.’
The implication of that is that it may be true, it may not be, but the conclusion you must carry in your heart is that if you are a truth seeker, you don’t put Daily Mail citations at the top of your tree of evidence.
The problem I’ve got is how badly they predicted Cycle 24 (and they were sure they were right and it was going to be a strong one). Why do we think they’re going to get 25 right? Could be better, could be much, much worse.
wayne Job says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:01 am
Seal fur futures may turn out to be a worthwhile investment at this time.
Unfortunately … Europe and Russia won’t buy any!
Hi DirkH
Thanks for the link to the JoNova site. I have to agree that after the prolonged minima we have just experienced and sluggish recovery we have seen in 24 the projection doesn’t look good, but would we not be guilty of jumping on the latest round of collective hysteria that our AGW friends have previously fallen for?
Both are projections. If I was to weigh the likely odds of them being correct I would come down in favour of the Sun is most likely to wane in the coming years.
What I do know is that our Planet has some wonderful feedback loops built in (I’m thinking Clouds) that stabilise our environment so that life may continue as it has since the Stromatolites first began Photosynthesising over 2.7 Billion years ago
Seems like only yesterday 😉
Dave
Why does anyone bother to expend any energy on Hansen? The man is a fool of the first order, and has zero credibility. All he’s doing is taking up space.
Dave A says:
January 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm
///////////////////////////////////////
Thats my take on it.
We do not know enough about the sun, nor how it impacts on climate to make any predictions that carry with them high certainty. It is, at this stage, a bit premature, as all the predictions with cycle 24 woud suggest.
I think that we can be a little bit more certain as to the effect of cooling ocean cycles and what will take place once the Atlantic turns to its cool phase.
Of course, if the sun does ‘cool’ and if the predictions regarding a sustained period of low solar activity turn out to be correct and if this in turn, for reasons not fully understood, results in cooler temperatures then this will not be welcome since there will be little doubt that the impact on agriculture will be negative and with ever more mouths to feed, this will not be a good thing. Carrying forward high energy costs will only exacerbate the problems.
As Mr Gates observes, we live in interesting times, although I am quite glad that I have already migrated to warmer climes since there has not been enough global warming in the UK to make life comfortable.
TBear says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:15 am
////////////////////////////////
I agree that some scientists appear rather blinkered and bound to their beliefs (and I use that word deliberately). But this is the point that Mr Gates makes, namely provided that there are no substantial volcano eruptions, we are going to get an opportunity to test the correctness of that assertion.
I for one doubt that that assetion is correct but in the course of the next 20 to 30 years, we will know better.
Heating and cooling are caused by variations of all wavelengths of the solar energy spectrum. This includes UV which varies as much as 5-10% and effects the temp of the upper atmosphere..
A sad and true fact is the AWG folks have pulled the wool over many politicians around the world who are still too embarrassed to change course. The cooling will be worse than they think and will be the problem in a very short time-frame.
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Interesting times ahead for sure. Dalton or Maunder minimum Take 2 versus the highest levels of CO2, methane, and N2O in at least 800,000 years. One thing for certain, one of the groups (warmist or skeptic) will have far fewer members by 2030, but the two psychologically different groups will no doubt have found some totally new topic to squabble about. Probably something to do with civil rights for robots or whether China has the right to claim territorial rights to Mars. This is a most exciting time to be alive!
Branson Holidays will be doing day trips to Mars using the Higgs Boson drive by then!
The last word about the David Rose, Daily Mail, article should go to the Met Office — seeing as it’s their work which Rose distorted and cherry picked to create yet another of his [Snip. Policy violation. ~dbs, mod.] articles.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
Quote: “Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.”
How can the UK MET office possibly predict that the Sun will create 0.08 degrees celsius of global cooling between now and 2100? It is just ludicrous. This is not physics, this is a lab technician inputting figures into a computer program that is based on a trace gas heating theory and publishing the result. They even admit that they have cherry picked the model they used as other models would have given totally different results. Why not publish their predicted energy levels from the sun over that period, then at least people can do some proper physics.
JRWoodman,
Thanx for the Met office propaganda. But the fact is that there has been no warming since 1997. Stick around here, and you might learn something.
John Brookes,
Most skeptics are seekers of the truth (with some exceptions), not nearly as narrow minded as many supporters of CAGW. Most are even what would be called luke-warmers, ie agreeing there has been some warming the last 100 or so years, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can potentially cause some warming. They just think no falsifiable evidence has been shown that it is significantly warming above natural variation, and if natural variation tends down, it would likely result in a downward net. Of course they would modify their position based on significant changes in future trends that support the models. They have been skeptical because the facts did not agree with the models.
“…This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C…”
And, since the HadCRU is only running about .4C above “normal”, we could see a run into the blue for a few years. So if their record goes below -.4C, their “estimate” will be proven wrong.
Gives us something to look forward to.
“…However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850…”
And the period of the LIA was clearly the coldest in the instrumental record using the same data.
Even if we DON’T see the 2C drop, the current peak will show up as a warmer period in the record. This at a time when CO2 is going up, and proving a point – that some of the warming could have been caused by natural variation.
after a rather cool beginning to summer after a cold and rather wet winter, whats NOT growing is a bit of a worry re food supply, and thats a home garden with the ability to compensate for a lot that farmers couldnt. cooling would be a greater issue I think.
ScuzzaMan says:
January 30, 2012 at 3:00 am
///////////////////////////////////////
IT is correct that winters can be very dry. I now live in Spain. It was very wet in November, but I do not recall one rainy day in December and we have had only one rainy day in January. So in 2 months, 1 maximum 2 wet days. The forecast is good for the next 10 days and these forecasts are usually fairly accurate, far more accurate than forecasts for the UK. .
Rain is not a problem for the UK. The South (particularly South East) is already reasonably dry. The main water sources are Scotland, North West England and Wales. All of these are mountainous areas and these mountains catch weather fronts coming off the Atlantic (the dominant wind pattern). Since the geography will not change, there will always be rain in these areas.
Even if the wind direction were to alter, since the UK is a small island surrounded by water, the wind swept air will always be wet and will eventually meet the mountains and drop its load.
It is just a question of managing water resource which as far as the UK is concerned should not be that difficult due to its small size and the nature of its geography.
Drought is over-hyped as far as the UK is concerned.
John Brooks,
I forgot to add that they are also skeptical due to the exaggerations, outright lies, and bad behavior of the main promoters of CAGW. Al Gore, the hockey stick, climategate 1 and 2 and examination of the limitations of the models are just the tip of the iceburg of problems.
@jimmi_the_dalek
I am somewhat in the same camp as you. I just wish we could get the straight scoop and have an arbiter who can say for both sides “This is right and this is not” So many spins
Roger Knights says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:06 am
Grimwig says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:13 am
Whatever else happens, the Thames in London will not freeze – not with massive power stations like Didcot pumping waste heat into it.
There must be lots of these power stations worldwide dumping waste heat into the water, which makes its way to the sea, warming the oceans a bit. Have the warmists taken this into account? It ought to reduce the warming attributable to CO2.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
See this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093443/Swimming-pensioner-makes-splash-discovering-stretch-English-Channel-stays-warm-year-round.html
In the overall scheme of things I suspect that the impact is rather small.
A few days ago Dr. Piers Corbyn reported that his webpage had been down. Perhaps his humble laptop was hacked by the gigantic Met Office super-computer and this is the result of that intervention. That´s good news as they would be recognizing how powerful a laptop can be if run by an intelligent human mind.