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 wish that first chart went back to the 1600’s and showed the Maunder Minimum too. The contrast would be even more dramatic.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:08 am
and here is what the Met Office says : http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
==============
This comment on the MET Office article sums it up nicely.
Simon Cooper (11:47:24) :
What’s the matter with your command of the English language? There is a difference between warm (values) and warming (a trend). The last 10 years may have been warm, but there has been no warming trend. That is what people are talking about all over the world. No warming for 15 years. That’s accurate – until you produce HadCrut v4 with its new Arctic stations (no cherrypicking there then).
As for your models saying CO2 trumps the Sun, well, we’ll see. Your models and predictions so far have a batting average of 0.
AusieDan says:
January 31, 2012 at 4:10 am
R. Gates,
Something is seriously wrong, because I find myself agreeing with almost everything that you wrote in you first comment on this post.
____
Nothing wrong mate. I’m a very reasonable person, greatly and unfairly maligned by some.
______
James Allison says:
January 30, 2012 at 1:04 am
R. Gates says:
January 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Gates Your current fence sitting will likely lose you the status of WUWt’s most favourite troll. Please don’t turn. There aren’t many like you left.
____
I guess if you’re going to be a “troll” then it is best to be a favorite sort of one. As far as fence sitting, let me be clear:
I believe it is more likely than not that:
1) The buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is warming the climate (and causing climate change and climate disruption along the way).
2) It is highly likely we’ll see new at least one new instrument record in the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 as natural variations align with underlying forcing from increased greenhouse gases.
3) Any cooling from a new Dalton or Maunder Minimum is likely to be offset by the continued warming from greenhouse gases.
4) If we get a long period of cooling (like some skeptics believe might happen), and this lasts until 2030 or later, then by 2030 at the latest I’d probably no longer be a “warmist” and would become skeptical of AGW. I wonder how many AGW skeptics have an actual condition whereby they’d become a warmist?
re post: Richard M says: January 30, 2012 at 10:02 am
Actually there is some serious thought that the Dark Ages famines, disease, wars, etc., (including low temps) were triggered by an major caldera eruption of proto-Krakatoa around the year 535.
http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm
I include the following article only because it lays out some of the major effects world wide during the time period, and I don’t have time to search out a better piece. It places the eruptions somewhere in Central/South America, but I’m fairly sure the ash has been traced to Krakatoa and the C/S Am. idea overturned. http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html
Anyhow, anyone who is interested can search out info themselves.
R. Gates says:
I believe it is more likely than not that:
1) The buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is warming the climate (and causing climate change and climate disruption along the way).
You hold this belief against evidence. The climate is not warming.
2) It is highly likely we’ll see new at least one new instrument record in the years 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015 as natural variations align with underlying forcing from increased greenhouse gases.
Once again, global surface temps are currently flat, and have been for about fifteen years. Variability about that flat trend would be expected to periodically produce a “new record” against that relatively short (wrt to “records”) timespan. No “alignment” or “forcing” or “green house gasses” are necessary for that to happen. Thus if a new record should occur, that fact alone would mean absolutely nothing with respect to the existance of warming, or to any alleged cause for that unnecessarily concluded warming.
3) Any cooling from a new Dalton or Maunder Minimum is likely to be offset by the continued warming from greenhouse gases.
See #2. What is not happening cannot be said to be continuing.
4) If we get a long period of cooling (like some skeptics believe might happen), and this lasts until 2030 or later, then by 2030 at the latest I’d probably no longer be a “warmist” and would become skeptical of AGW.
So, in order for you to give up belief in unnatural, catastrophic warming, you would have to see 30 years of cooling? Ben Santer’s seventeen years of less-than-model-predicted warming wouldn’t do it for ya, huh? Thirty years of dead flat temps, and you will still be seeing warming?
Recapping:
You see warming where there is none. You interpret things like “new records” as evidence of warming when that is not the case. The only way you will give up the notion of warming, is to see a period of cooling about twice as long as the most recent period of warming.
You may wish to re-examine your faith commitment.
65 below in the interior valleys of Alaska is right in line with the 70 below in the Yukon in 2009, and let’s not forget the Antarctic blast that got loose in 2010 that crossed the equator. There’s a definate decline going on. And, once again, the Sun is back to very low activity.
I’d say it’s the start of another round of Mini Ice Age. Remember to tell your grandkids about the good old days…the warmer period.
The only question now is: How cold will it get and how long will it last?
R Gates,
it seems your grasp on sarcasm is no stronger than your grasp on scientific truth, everyone on here can see you are a “Team” player and your efforts to ensure you get your little paragraph of equilibrium rantings on every single thread, is trolling plain and simple, and quite frankly I would not put up with your behavior or that of others, though I applaud Anthony and the WUWT crew for their patience and anti-censorship stance.
You have science back to front, as do many CAGW faithful, the onus of proof is on the creator of the hypothesis, not the rest of the world, and merely one piece of evidence refuting the hypothesis renders it void, 30 years of cooling to prove otherwise? Are you kidding? Even the “Team” would have long walked away. As a reader of WUWT you have been provided the tools to thoroughly debunk CAGW, yet you ignore them. 30 years of data EXACTLY matching predictions of CAGW is what is required as a minimum to PROVE CAGW exists, any deviation is proof the model is wrong, do I need to fill in the blanks? I have better things to do that write you a summarized version of this blog and the tens of thousands of pages of proof CAGW is fraud. Bring us HARD data, irrefutable proof, no models, guesses, predictions, projections, gut feelings, Hansenisms, diversions, mistruths, tree rings, Mannthamatics, adjustments, or visions inspired by your fairy godmother, and I am sure I can speak for everyone when I say we will listen, until then how about being a nice chap and sitting out your 30 years quietly in the corner?
BB says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/headlines-over-solar-cycle-25-and-potential-cooling/#comment-881302
True. I am sure R.Gates and A.Physicist are on someone’s payroll to come here and leave remarks, on every post at WUWT, that are supposed to make us think that our (sceptic) view is just a tiny majority. If you engage them showing some real research, like I did here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#comment-878388
they will never challenge such research.
But on the next post you will note that they are back again, happily trolling along. I suppose if you get paid for it, you would also be happy to do the same?
R. Gates says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:40 am
Mr R Gates. I have it on very good authority that enlightenment is upon us. Be careful where you tread Sir, you may very well have placed yourself on some very tender ground.
Markus Fitzhenry.
Again, temp graphs with only the upper temperature “dots” are somewhat worthless. Given in the US there were two dozen double record days. That is, days in which both the hottest and coldest records were broken. So, were these days hotter or colder? Like a blond joke, no one knows.
It could have been a very hot day, then chilled down a lot during the very last minute. Boom!
Both records broken in the same day. Or, it might have been a very cold day, then became record hot in the last hour. So, mostly a colder day. See what I mean! What is needed is to show the complete range of temps for the time period in question. Use FDDs and HDDs, Freezing Degree Days and Heating Degree Days. This tells you how much winter oil to burn and how much air conditioning you will need. This tells you whether it is really warmer or colder. If your winter heating bills are going down and your air conditioning bills are skyrocketing: it’s Global Warming.
I live in Poland.
Man, am I glad we found all this natural gas. Any bets on whether they will ban fracking in Europe?