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.
From the Met Office:
“It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases”
It’s a strange thing: when the Sun goes behind the Earth (i.e. at night) the temperature where I live plunges precipitously, even though the concentration of greenhouse gases doesn’t change (except to keep getting ‘worse’, i.e. I keep breathing, people keep driving their cars, burning oil, coal, gas, wood, and etc.).
Anyone who thinks the sun’s influence is less than the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not really paying attention.
but what do I know?
I only live on this planet.
R. Gates, that fencepost must chafe. Both camps make the same mistake. They are overwhelmed by the massive Sun, or scary fossil fuel CO2. Meanwhile Earth’s own intrinsic, chaotic, oscillating, leaky drivers continue their rule over Earth’s temperature trends. These drivers, and these drivers alone, have the energy needed to drive weather patterns away or keep them entrenched over land and sea long enough to show up as trends in the data. No other driver has that energy. Period.
Want proof? Look at any period marked with a trend (long or short, I don’t care) and find out what the oceanic and atmospheric patterns were like at the time. Find out what the oceans were doing. Find out where the pressure systems were and the jet streams. Find out where the land masses were. Measure the wobble in the tilt of the globe. Each trend has a natural intrinsic explanation. To convince me otherwise, you must show that either the Sun or CO2 can overwhelm these mathematically powerful drivers (come on folks, we are talking about the oceans here and extremely large and powerful pressure systems) of temperature and overwhelm them into a different trend. You can’t do it without significant fudge factors and WAG assumptions.
Earth rules. The null hypothesis remains.
When I read the Daily Mail article my BS indicator started trembling. After all, what do we really know about solar cycle 25…Well, nothing as yet, as we are still in 24. So, to start predicting Maunder minima on no evidence is a bit OTT. However this is a journalist making up a story from a few facts and a lot of suppositions. Pinch of sea salt (more magnesium…better for you.)
Then I read the Met Office reposte and my BS indicator wrapped around the top stop, burnt the fuse out and disintegrated before my eyes.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
Not journalists like Rose, these are meant to be the scientists!
1. They keep their OWN temperature record, Hadcrut 3 yet when it suits them they quote Giss etc to prove that 2010 is warmer. So why do we pay for them to do a temperature series if they are not even prepared to stand by it themselves.
2. There is NO statistically significant difference in 2010 and 1998. Even they have already admitted that. Even the Great professor Jones who must have learnt his statistics playing hopscotch in the junior playground admits that there is no statistically significant warming.
3. They show a graph that starts in the little ice age to prove it is trending warmer…..Of course it is, idiots, that’s why it was called the little ice age. Do they think we do not understand that a trend line of 150 years does not reverse in 10 years. So of course the “trend” remains upwards even though the temperature has flatlined..
4. The last decade has been the warmest on record. OF COURSE IT HAS! We are at the top of a warm cycle and it has flat lined. Are we expecting it to suddenly drop by 0.8 of a degree to become the coolest. It is a complete BS statement with no meaning whatsoever. Don’t forget we are talking about the MET OFFICE response not a journalist making up a story..
.5. “The study found that”. “In addition the study also showed that” They ran ONE model.!!!!!!!
“It’s important to note this study is based on a single climate model, rather than multiple models which would capture more of the uncertainties in the climate system.”
This isn’t a study, Its a bloody Nintendo game. They start talking about 92% of this and that, then temperature changes to TWO decimal place, as though they sent HG Wells forward in a time machine and measured them not just ran them up on their playstation.
I am disgusted by this hopelessly unscientific claptrap that I have to pay for. It is no wonder the Met Office are held in such contempt in the UK if weasel words like these are what they substitute for science. Shame on them.
Considering how accurate SC24 forecasts where, I will believe it when I see it.
Village Idiot says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am
Sounds like the Met Office has been reading R. Gates and ignoring my “plateau” suggestion.
According to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ 2010 was the 3rd warmest, see my comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878903
Warmest: 1998, anomaly +0.820°C
2nd: 2005 +0.747
3rd: 2010 +0.713
Should I be looking at some other database?
11th: 2011 +0.536
Off topic, but interesting read:
Global Warming vs. Affordable Asthma Inhalers: An Inconvenient Truth
The forced switch by the FDA to a greener inhaler will basically cost asthmatics between double and triple the cost of the ordinary epinephrine inhalers they currently use.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/forbidden-table-talk/2012/jan/28/global-warming-verses-affordable-inhalers-truth-ev/
There sure is gold in that mountain of global warming lies. This is a big issue for 34 million or so Americans asthmatics.
Bravo Disko Troop.
============
Martin says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:40 am
The Met Office strikes back
———————————————-
Looks like the Met Office is digging in its heels. Their graph looks convincing – 2000 to 2009 was the warmest ever decade and warmer than 1990-1999. It’s truly head scratching how different groups get such different answers with the same data sets.
Europe cold snap leaves 18 dead in Ukraine
At least 18 people have died in Ukraine after heavy snowfall and a sudden drop in temperatures across Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16786877
Oh great! Now we have to find answers for the 600+ things that were thought to be caused by global warming.
Global Warming Causes Everything: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Svensmark is interviewed in this Suzuki video “When North Goes South”:
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/video.html?ID=1678474875
I’m told the video is invisible outside of Canada. If so, this needs to get changed immediately.
Canadians: Contact your MP and demand immediate worldwide access for our devoted comrades, sisters & brothers afield.
A lot of trouble went into the making of the film.
A worldwide audience should see the film while it’s fresh.
Regards.
John Brookes says: January 30, 2012 at 4:10 am
I’m with R Gates. I think we’ll see continued rising temperatures, but time will tell. If 2011 – 2020 is a lot cooler than 2001 – 2010, I’ll happily say I was wrong. Will the “skeptics”?
Will the ‘skeptics’?, do what? The skeptics don’t have decades of warming propaganda/predictions to live up to. There is only one side that is funded and pushing an agenda, part of which is the pretense there is an Oil-funded Skeptic front pushing back, but that is part of the propaganda, it doesn’t exist, just like “unprecedented” current climactic events.
This Daily Mail article is good if only because hyperbole about cold is exactly the kind of speculative garbage we see every day about excessive warming. Perhaps between the two speculative extremes people will begin to realize that we really don’t have a clue: up, down, or flat, temperatures could go any direction. I predict that temperatures will continue to drift slowly as they appear to have always done but I won’t say which direction will be prevalent over the next 30 years.
If it does cool to levels where the Thames freezes over it will simply be dismissed as the cooling on the way to a warming world. Anything to keep the scam alive.
G Karst
Raise that to 32 dead and counting……
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/30/severe-cold-snap-kills-32-in-eastern-europe/?test=latestnews
How can you trust a model which has cloud as its top layer, all the time, all year round? Where the warming only happens at ground level because they are using data from airports with the sensors behind the parking area of jet airplanes.
They can’t even input data properly into their models. Thermodynamic calculations using temperatures in Celsius yet the data inputted is in Fahrenheit.
Most of their newly employed graduates quit after a year because they’ve had enough of bodging models, they don’t want to be part of this big con job.
It’s gone on for so long now, it’d be impossible to correct the mistakes in the datasets. It’s just one big unauditable mess. No commercial company would get away with handling their datasets in this way.
The amount of times they invite in global warming scientists in for informal lectures on their ‘research’ and the more cynical employees tear them a new arsehole with their questioning is astounding. It used to be comical, now it’s just embarrassing.
This cooling that is clearly shown in HADCRUT3 is (of course) just a slowing of warming in GISS and BEST. But amateur astronomers have noticed an increase in cloud cover in many places.
Svensmark led the way!
It would be unwise to conflate warming with cooling. Warming was a pleasant walk in the park. ANY Cooling will NOT be a pleasant skate on the pond. Our plant food supply can take warming but any shortening of growing season has a immediate effect on crop yields. Declining food stocks and increasing population WILL collide. Cooling is, and always has been, a real danger. After all, it is the natural state existing for hundreds of thousands of years. So it cannot be regarded as fiction or unlikely. Which generation will have to endure it… is the only real question!
Our only long term hope is to discover all the real causes of climate cooling and somehow break it’s repeating pattern. Other than that, stockpiling the planet’s food stocks would be prudent. Does anyone think we will be prepared?! GK
While the Daily Mail article is less than scientific (to say the least), the response by the MET office is hilarious. In an obvious attempt to “hide the decline” they use decade average temperatures instead of yearly temps which conveniently hides the downturn. Their credibility continues to plummet.
They have this single minded focus that any activity in the sun cannot offset the warming, that they have not proven, caused by the advancement of mankind. If they were invested in the Titanic and on its maiden voyage they would have gone down with the ship proclaiming it was not sinking.
Their statement: “because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide.”
UK Met office paper:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
I cannot find a met office paper that states “the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years” but they did release the annual temperature number for 2012 that shows it was cooler than 1997, which is probably what the Mail is getting at. You can say anything you like with temperature data. Depending on how you look at it 2011 was either;
1. The 12th warmest year since 1850 or;
2. The second coldest year this century
If you read the Guardian you would quote the former or if you read the Mail you would quote the latter. Personally I think temperatures probably are on a downward track for a while as the trend is clearly topping out:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/hadcrut3graphspage5.jpg
And this is leading to a slowing rate of sea level rise:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/sealevel.jpg
Tip for serious Climate Scientists looking to gain the inside track…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Agnesi.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_distribution
CD has no mean, no variance, & no higher moments.
“The Cauchy distribution is an infinitely divisible probability distribution. It is also a strictly stable distribution.”
“Like all stable distributions, the location-scale family to which the Cauchy distribution belongs is closed under linear transformations with real coefficients. In addition, the Cauchy distribution is the only univariate distribution which is closed under linear fractional transformations with real coefficients. […] In this connection, see also McCullagh’s parametrization of the Cauchy distributions.”
More details on superior data exploration utility at a later date…
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm
“… the two psychologically different groups will no doubt have found some totally new topic to squabble about.”
So that’s behind the argument? You are psychologically different?
Remember the constant drip, drip, drip feeding into all our brains by the warmists & the Met Office.UEA, et al:-
Extract from Meinkampf, Adolf Hilter.
Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. …
Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.
I suspect this is posted up on Bob Ward’s notice board;-))
Rosco says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:58 am
As I recall from organic chemistry, CO2 is in the lowest energy state and can’t lose any more. I don’t know what the energy of a molecule of CO2 would be after it absorbed a photon *BUT* I cannot believe that the recently excited molecule isn’t ready to lose the additional energy as soon as it receives it. What purpose would be served by retaining the additional energy? I would think it possible to construct a lab experiment to measure this phenomena.