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.
So we here we go
from AGW to CAGW to ACC to CACC to AGC to CAGC
Re: Alan the Brit says:
January 30, 2012 at 8:10 am
And this is an excellent example of the type of propaganda the UK Met Office pushes out
MET OFFICE WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS
“It’s now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term.”
“It’s a problem we all share, because every single country will be affected. Together, today, we must take action to adapt to it and stop it — or, at least, slow it down.”
“What will happen if we don’t reduce emissions?
If emissions continue to grow at present rates, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is likely to reach twice pre-industrial levels by around 2050. Unless we limit emissions, global temperature could rise as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial temperature by the end of the century and push many of the world’s great ecosystems (such as coral reefs and rainforests) to irreversible decline.
Even if global temperatures rise by only2 °C it would mean that 20–30% of species could face extinction. We can expect to see serious effects on our environment, food and water supplies, and health.”
“Are computer models reliable?
Yes. Computer models are an essential tool in understanding how the climate will respond to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and other external effects, such as solar output and volcanoes.
Computer models are the only reliable way to predict changes in climate. Their reliability is tested by seeing if they are able to reproduce the past climate, which gives scientists confidence that they can also predict the future.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/a/quick_guide.pdf
Piers Corbyn wrote on a prior Solar thread here the following. No one commented on it and so repeat the main point of his which is that the debate is about ODD V. Regular solar cycles. He does not, if i’m not mistaken, idenity the mysterious ‘WUWT’s Force X’ which is the link between the Sun (and it’s output) and the earth and it’s atmosphere and i’m adding: it’s magnetic core.
‘…………………………………Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
January 25, 2012 at 9:13 pm
THIS confirms the view we and others expressed two years ago (and Timo Niroma years before that) and have since re-expressed, although maybe it is a bit ‘OTT’ (or perhaps one should say UTB – Under The Bottom on this). A Russian associate, Kirill Kuzanyan eg has also (mid-last year) suggested a low solar cycle 25.
It is ODD CYCLES (and odd cycles pretty well only) which control long term world average temperatures (nothing to do with CO2, Cosmic Rays to any extent or as far as we can see to any extent EVEN cycles) so this is an important projection…………………………….’
Slightly on topic, perhaps …clouds exhibiting amazing behavior:
Basically then, the earth is still warming, but we don’t notice it as much since it’s getting colder.
“John Brookes says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:10 am
. . . continued rising temperatures . . .”
That’s not the issue.
Calculating some strange average to 3 or 4 digits to the right of the decimal point is a waste of time. It would be much better to look for a reasonable answer to the right question than an ever more precise answer to a question that is irrelevant.
A better comment about skeptics is from Joanne Nova: “Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming.”
You might want to read her booklet:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
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.”
Gates;
Page 3;
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
238 000 years ago; 280 ppm. No runaway. Temperature not increasing. But most importantly; CO2 lagging temperature 800 years.
Have you read it? Should calm you down regarding your fears regarding CO2. Can you explain why temperatures are going down, then CO2, 800 years later? Tells me one thing; Temperature controlling CO2 levels through outgassing from oceans. Not opposite.
Luckily the CO2 level came up again. Thanks to Henry’s law, me thinks.
I think it was Smokey that first showed me this link.
Callion et. al., Fisher et al, Petit et al are all behind Science mag.s paywall.
I have access, but unfortunately you need to go through a process to get it.
This just proves that the sun never ended the debate when told and neither did the PDO or the AMO.
R Gates says,
“…One thing for certain, one of the groups (warmist or skeptic) will have far fewer members by 2030”
R Gates you are, “our troll.” Don’t you know you are on the road to Damascus? We are getting ready to receive you into fellowship. The day is soon coming (way before 2030) when you are going to tell us… “In beholding I have become changed” Can’t you see it coming? You aren’t a true believer anymore. But, don’t worry… I’m sure we will find something else to argue about.
With perfect timing Richard Black at the BBC is sending his readers to to a “spoiler” from both his Twitter account and the BBC news science page.
http://twitter.com/#!/BBCRBlack/status/164030529602195456
The little ice age was triggered by volcanism and then sustained by ice and ocean feedbacks. Nowt to do with the Sun and the researchers even set it at a constant level in their “models”.
https://www2.ucar.edu/news/6338/study-may-answer-longstanding-questions-about-little-ice-age
pennlion says:
January 30, 2012 at 5:21 am
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.
UV actually varies over the solar cycle by much greater margins depending on the wavelength. EUV (100%) FUV (30%) and MUV by (1%).
The solar chemical effects on atmosphere and climate are well known.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/236
Richard Black: “Little Ice Age caused by volcanoes, sustained by ice and ocean feedbacks”
One wonders what Richard Black thinks the volcanoes are doing. Let me explain it to him. They eject particulates that block the Sun’s energy from reaching the Earth. OMG, there’s that “Sun” word that all alarmists hate.
Also, was the LIA the only time that volcanoes have erupted in the Holocene? Why was no other period as cool? Well, wouldn’t want to hurt poor Richard’s head so we better not ask.
As a Canadian I find this news to be most troubling.
Yes Zac (9.20) here’ some of Black’s pixie dust on the BBC:-
“When the researchers plugged in the sequence of eruptions into a computer model of climate, they found that the short but intense burst of cooling was enough to initiate growth of summer ice sheets around the Arctic Ocean, as well as glaciers.
The extra ice in turn reflected more solar radiation back into space, and weakened the Atlantic ocean circulation commonly known as the Gulf Stream.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16797075
Another Gareth — Ha ha, perfect, fire up the nukes, run the current backwards, next stop Bermuda (still British right?) I see it all and here I was sceptical of Huhne, I didn’t realise he was a genius. Now I see why the SNP want to build so many windmills. They want to snap Scotland off and get there first.
HenryP says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-879567
I should perhaps just explain here
(I hope the mods will allow this)
but if you have to pronounce in Dutch (NL) or Flemish(B) or Afrikaans (RSA),
anything that starts with CA and ends with G or C
it sounds like KAK
which actually means: SHIT
The precautionary principle should now tell us to abondon global warming and pump as many CO2 into the air as we can.
Confused, how does a volcano pumping S02 “cool” while CO2 “warms”, is it the dark ash? Does it have a significant enough aloft time in the atmosphere to effect climate versus weather.
joe says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:58 am
The people who commented here are the composites of horror movie characters. Bluster and disdain while things are calm. Contempt for those who can think ahead for more than twenty minutes. When disaster strikes. The tough guy in calm times turns into a panicked child and it’s every man for himself. Parents depriving their children of food because it is short supply and too expensive. Starving the next generation to death to save them selves a few bucks as a downpayment on their future of dispair. Keeping taxes low by denying our irresponsible behaviour is having a detrmental impact on the earth and our quality of life is like saving money on our medical bills by denying we have cancer. All that we saved in denial can never be spent after we are dead, but we keep on denying and we keep dying in misery.
Oh, I know. Just awful, isn’t it.
/sarc
Village Idiot says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am
Met Office responds (29/1/12):
“This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading”.
“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.”
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/
Not according to Phil Jones, (Jan 2012) for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Time to remember,
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=jones1_Join_to_AVI_1-1.mp4
Continuing to do the wrong things now has the potential of desaster for mankind.
What will this mean for scientists, who produced those errorneous climate reconstructions and did not retract them, for those at IPCC who exclude solar science from AR5 and also misrepresent the disturbing and increasing gap between models and measurements ?
manfred says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-879673
Henry says:
I am afraid it’s not going to work. I am so sorry.
More CO2 is better, for better crops and more greenery, but it is not going to do warm the atmosphere, much,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Sorry it was not 2012
Wellington says:
January 30, 2012 at 8:06 am
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?
_______
Best to not spend too much time on this topic on this particular thread, but see:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/09/20/liberal-conservative-brain-differences/
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Alan Millar said:
“I wonder what the reaction will be of the warmists, if we get to 2016 with no new unambiguous record? Anybody think that they may suddenly decide that a 95% confidence level is no big deal in science anyway? Or perhaps GISS will suddenly discover, after a few adjustments, that 1998 wasn’t that hot after all!
So Mr Gates et al what are your current confidence level that temperatures are going to end up where the models predict?”
____
I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see at least one new instrument record setting warm year in the next 4 (2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015). I base this on the fact that the underlying forcing from the additional anthropogenic greenhouse gases is still present, and it is highly likely that we’ll see at least a moderate El Nino around the same time as Solar Max 24. When natural variability aligns with greenhouse forcing, records are broken.
After that, I have a fairly high degree of confidence (90%) that we’ll see global temperatures at least 2C to 3C warmer than they are now by the time CO2 levels have reached 560 ppm, with continued warming after that until equilbrium temperature is reached (assuming the CO2 levels stopped somehow at 560 ppm).