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.
I can see it coming. When they finally get around to admitting that it is the sun’s fault that temperatures are falling they will be telling us that it would be much colder were it not for the CO2, which will fry us in time to come. As my old father used to say, ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’.
The way I read the Warmer Input to the article was: “CO2 …… Prevents ICE AGE”, “Next Solar Max will …….. Cook Humanity Due to CO2”
COO-OCD . . the next Psychiatric disorder discovery.
It would be amusing to see the suggested “cooling control” measures. Maximize CO2 output? Heh.
Pamela Gray says:
January 30, 2012 at 6:04 am
It is still all due to the sun. The source of all the energy driving the weather and currents and warming the oceans is the sunn.
Lovely little lady isn’t she?
Cheers
R. Gates says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:14 am
So after perusing the article and the link, basically liberals can’t stay committed and focused but are more “adaptable”. It sounds to me like they are more easily led astray by what sounds good and feels good, not able to stay focused and committed to core ideals and beliefs.
They try to say more liberated in their thinking, which sounds better.
Interesting. I guess that means it isn’t their fault they are liberals, they are wired that way. Fits right in with their “It isn’t your fault” ideology that never assigns responsibility to wrong doers. In short, liberals have brain damage. Thanks, it wil help me understand my lefty friends better..
R. Gates says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:28 am
“”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.””
This blog is becoming a fiction writers paradise.
I think people are running ahead of themselves a little here. If the past is any guide to the future (and so far, things are going about as could be expected), we can expect about 0.4 K of a drop as a result of PDO/AMO shift, and possibly 0.2K of a drop as a result of lower solar output for a total of around 0.6K by around 2030-40, which will still leave us slightly warmer than the ’70s. We’ll then warm to just over 1998 by 2070 and finish the century out about where we started it. Caveat emptor – this is purely from wiggle-watching
Last century we had 2 warm phases and one cold, this century it will be 2 cold phases and one warm. There is every likelihood that we will continue warming at this rate until around 2200, at which point we will most likely decline into the next “Little Ice Age” in 2800, a problem our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren will have to worry about. And no amount of CO2 is going to help them.
Ezra Klein’s “Wonkblog” at the Washington Post featured the Warmist view of this story in this editorial. The author relied on SkepSci to deepen his ignorance of the subject matter… LOL!
I posted this comment (as TexGeo)…
So to tally the knowledge base:
a) GMT not increasing significantly or is slightly decreasing in last 15 years
b) The CAGW’s CO2 increased significantly in last 15 years according to IPCC centric scientists
c) Unexceptional TSI and SSI variation in the last 15 years
d) The last 15 years of climate had a natural variation (with man’s influence included) which is consistent with the natural variation of the last +1000 years
e) At the time of the greatest flourishing of life on earth the CO2 levels were up to 9 times greater than they have been for the last 15 years
f) Ice core data show CO2 levels lag temperature levels by ~800 years
Summary:
Un-alarmingO Hansen, Hansen, wherefore art thou alarmist? [apologies to Shakespeare]
John
@Perry 3:16 jan 30th
N20!!?!?
What a gas!
It’s laughable what these guys try to pull.
MAtthew Epp says: “In short, liberals have brain damage.”
I’ve made the claim it is genetic. The inability to be honest. All thought is driven by insatiable self serving drive regardless of truth. For normal folks it is obvious who they are. The fall for the same old ages long entrapment’s.
R. Gates says:
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).
Claims of confidence are cheap. How much are you willing to lose, if you are wrong?
When natural variability aligns with greenhouse forcing, records are broken.
When natural variability aligns with a natural peak in trend, or a flattening of a natural upward trend, or the beginning of a downturn in a natural trend, records are broken. A new record means nothing wrt to the current state of the trend, the future state of the trend, or the cause of the trend. This, of course, is why you fixate on such things. It is another sypmtom of the same disease that renders you incapable of correctly interpreting “flattening”.
Why don’t you try some confidence building on some metric that might actually be diagnostic wrt the accuracy of your worldview?
Ric Werme says:
January 30, 2012 at 6:23 am
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
Here is the table from the Met Office 2012 annual global temperature forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/2012-global-temperature-forecast
This table provides the top 12 rankings for all three datasets and includes Jan to Oct 2011:
Rank HadCRUT3 NOAA NCDC NASA GISS WMO Average
Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *Year Anomaly *
1 1998 0.52 2010 0.52 2010 0.56 2010 0.53
2 2010 0.50 2005 0.52 2005 0.55 2005 0.52
3 2005 0.47 1998 0.50 2007 0.51 1998 0.51
4 2003 0.46 2003 0.49 2009 0.50 2003 0.47
5 2002 0.46 2002 0.48 2002 0.49 2002 0.47
6 2009 0.44 2006 0.46 1998 0.49 2009 0.47
7 2004 0.43 2009 0.46 2006 0.48 2006 0.45
8 2006 0.43 2007 0.45 2003 0.48 2007 0.45
9 2007 0.40 2004 0.45 2011 0.45 2004 0.43
10 2001 0.40 2001 0.42 2004 0.41 2001 0.41
11 2011 0.36 2011 0.41 2001 0.40 2011 0.41
12 1997 0.36 2008 0.38 2008 0.37 2008 0.36
* Anomaly: °C above long-term average of 14.0 °C.
Here is HADCRUT3v:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
1997 0.349
1998 0.529
1999 0.304
2000 0.278
2001 0.407
2002 0.455
2003 0.467
2004 0.444
2005 0.474
2006 0.425
2007 0.397
2008 0.329
2009 0.436
2010 0.470
2011 0.342
Here is HADCRUT3:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
1997 0.352
1998 0.548
1999 0.297
2000 0.271
2001 0.408
2002 0.465
2003 0.475
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.425
2007 0.402
2008 0.325
2009 0.443
2010 0.478
2011 0.340
Here is HADCRUT3v sorted:
1998 0.529
2005 0.474
2010 0.470
2003 0.467
2002 0.455
2004 0.444
2009 0.436
2006 0.425
2001 0.407
2007 0.397
1997 0.349
2011 0.342
2008 0.329
1999 0.304
2000 0.278
Here is HADCRUT3 sorted:
1998 0.548
2005 0.482
2010 0.478
2003 0.475
2002 0.465
2004 0.447
2009 0.443
2006 0.425
2001 0.408
2007 0.402
1997 0.352
2011 0.340
2008 0.325
1999 0.297
2000 0.271
Where did the Met Ofice get their data for the table in the 2012 forecast?
Where have I gone wrong? Neither HADCRUT3 nor HADCRUT3v matches the order ascribed to HADCRUT3 in the Met Office 2012 forecast table.
WUWT?
According to Judith Lean, the celebrated, and million times quoted solar scientist, the
temps in 2014, made as solid honest forecast, is + 0.14 C in temp increase over 2010…..
and she has all the Suncycles 24, 23, 25 etc. pp. integrated in her work……
An honest AWG-forecast…..let’s see how she will fare……
in any case, no new ice age on the horizon….we will have to adapt global
temps to forecasts and not the other way around…..
……if HadCRUT4 does not provide enough warming….. lets work on HadCRUT5,
and chase warm spots and locations…., you will see, the 0.14 C will be
substantiated….by the Metoffice…..
The global cooling articles actually started up in 2007 – at least, I’ve been tracking it since then. The media has been hyping climate change for over 100 years – the NY Times warned of an upcoming ice age in 1895 – and it switches from warming to cooling every few decades. It’s a bit easier to catch them at it now, thanks to the internet.
just do what NASA does. Erase the non-warming with an algorithm…
I pray they are as wrong about this as they have been about CAGW.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
Looks like for the IPCC and their friends, the world ends in 2015, not in 2012.
[snip – grow up, Jerky ]
maybe you should read the rebuttal!:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
Look at the red cherries .
It has to be embarrassing to put out this sort of divorced from science dreck.
meemoe_uk says:
“Hi noaaprogrammer,
If you really are a computer programmer working for NOAA, will you create a time series chart based on the data at …”
Sorry. I quit programming for NOAA back in the 1970s to teach computer science. I should probably change my handle to 4merNOAAprogramer.
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.
Regret comes from an empty head and a big mouth.
I am 100% positive I remember reading a statement on RC by Gavin hisself circa ~2007 that stated if there is no warming for at least 10 years, then that would falsify the models. Since we’re 15 years in now, I wonder what his reaction is…
R. Gates,
Something is seriously wrong, because I find myself agreeing with almost everything that you wrote in you first comment on this post.
The only bit that I disagree with was your second line, when you spoke about the so called effects of the so called greenhouse gases.
Apart from that, I do agree that one side will have far less backers by the 2030’s, while the other, larger side will be busy trying to keep warm.
How’s that for an attempt at evenhandedness?
Not bad eh? /Jokeing off.
Now I base the above, not on the expectation that solar events will cool the earth.
I bas it solely on a simple projection, which I carried out several years ago.
I merely projected the normal 60 year cycle in the global temperature which shows that the temperature will be noticably down by 2030 and will not regain the present level until after 2050.
However, if all the talk of major solar minimums comes to pass, then it will be far, far worse, I’m afraid.
A large minority of the population of the globe will starve to death.
So my upside, happy vision is for damn cold, unpleasant weather.
My system is muvkimh up so I can’t read this to check my spelling.
That is a real disaster.
Fortunately the cooling will not all happen over-night. There is long latency in the oceans which cover the globe (70%) so the change will be gradual. We will be able to covert the bogus ethanol fuel process back to vodka for a period before the growing lands get covered by snow during summer. It is sad that so many will be short of food and out of vodka until the true cooling trend scares the politicals into changing course.