Global Cooling – Climate and Weather Forecasting.
Guest post by Dr. Norman Page
Introduction.
Over the last 10 years or so as new data have accumulated the general trend and likely future course of climate change has become reasonably clear. The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. The major natural factors controlling climate change have also become obvious.Unfortunately the general public has been bombarded by the scientific and media and political establishments with anthropogenic global warming – anti CO2 propaganda based on the misuse and misrepresentation of already shoddy IPCC “science” for political ,commercial and personal ends.
The IPCC climate science community largely abandoned empirical Baconian inductive scientific principles and built worthless climate models based on unfounded assumptions designed to show that anthropogenic CO2 was the driving force behind changing climate. Most of the IPCC output is useless as a tool for predicting future climate trends and their impacts and in particular the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers can be safely ignored for practical purposes. The divergence between the IPCC Hansen projections and the observed trends is shown below.
Fig 1 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
Fortunately, however , the basic data is now easily available so that any reasonably intelligent person can check on line daily or monthly to see what the incoming empirical data actually is and draw ones own conclusions.
Here’s how to do it in a few simple steps. I have put in CAPITALS the main empirical observations on which one can draw conclusions re climate change ,its causes and future trends and also get a good idea of weather patterns and trends for the next year or so.
1. Check the Temperature Trends and Data.
Because of the Urban Heat Island effect ,the built in local variability of the NH land data and the thermal inertia of the oceans, Sea Surface Temperatures are the best measure of global temperature trends. These show that the global warming trend ended in about 2003. THERE HAS NOW BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1997 -15 YEARS WITH CO2 RISING 8.5% WITH NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE. SINCE 2003 THE TREND IS NEGATIVE.
To check the past years go to
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
and for monthly updates go to.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The 2012 average NCDC SST anomaly thru Sept was .4438 versus the 1997 annual anomaly of .4575.
The peak anomaly was .5207 in 2003.
An excellent site for reviewing all the basic temperature data is http://www.climate4you.com/
2. Check the current phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Here is a plot and suggested projection based on the Hadley SST3 from Tallbloke.
(See: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/) He says “I have put together a simple model which replicates sea surface temperature (which drives global lower troposphere temperature and surface temperatures a few months later). The correlation between my model and the SST is R^2=0.874 from 1876 FOR MONTHLY DATA.” The model is shown with predictions to 2050 (blue) along with the HADsst3 (red).
I included Fig 2 because an approximate 60 year cycle is obvious by inspection and this coincides well with the 30 year +/- positive (warm) and 30year +/ negative (cold) phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Figure 2 shows warming from about 1910 – 1940-45 , cooling from then to about 1975 -.warming to about 2003-5 and cooling since then. Total warming during the 20th century was about 0.8 degrees C. For a complete discussion and review of the data relating the PDO to the other oceanic cycles and temperatures see
For latest PDO data see http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
IT IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A THIRTY YEAR NEGATIVE (COOLING ) PDO CYCLE.
3. Check Solar Activity – where are we at?
The major ice age climate cycles are controlled by the sun – earth orbital eccentricity,and the earth’s obliquity and precession. These cycles are approximately 100,000, 41,000 and 21000 years in length respectively and are well documented in the ice core and geological record. It is useful to keep in mind that the warmest temperatures in the current interglacial occurred about 7500+/- years ago and the GENERAL TREND IS NOW A COOLING TOWARDS THE NEXT ICE AGE.
Fig 4 http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/1999/07/11/vostok-1999/
These long term cycles are modulated by quasi cyclic trends in solar activity which may be decadal ,centennial or millennial in length.Of particular interest in deciding where we are with regard to the solar cycles is the approximately 1000 +/- year cycle which produced succesively the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages,the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the recent 20th century warming.
Fig 5 (From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/ )
The red line shows the continuing cooling trend from the Holocene optimum and the 1000yr +/- solar cycle is clearly seen.
NOTE – A REASONABLE CASE CAN BE MADE THAT THE WARMING PEAKS OF A 60 YEAR PDO CYCLE AND THE 1000 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE COINCIDED AT 2000 +/- AND WE ARE LIKELY ON THE COOLING SLOPE OF BOTH.
The clearest empirical measure of solar activity is the solar magnetic field strength. On an empirical basis Livingston and Penn have shown that the decline in solar magnetic field strength suggests that sunspots could disappear by about 2015 signalling THE START OF A NEW MAUNDER MINIMUM WITH SIGNIFICANT COOLING.
For a semi-empirical estimate of the possible cooling if a Maunder Minimum does develop see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
Note the abstract of the Shindell paper (Mann is one of the et als) says “THIS LEADS TO COLDER TEMPERATURES OVER THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CONTINENTS ESPECIALLY IN WINTER (1 to 2 C), IN AGREEMENT WITH HISTORICAL RECORDS AND PROXY DATA FOR SURFACE TEMPEERATURES
“For a good review of the latest sunspot and magnetic data see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/the-sun-still-slumping/ and to keep with the decline in solar magnetic field strength and the liklihood of a Maunder Minimum check monthly the Livingston and Penn thread at
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=855
Perhaps the best indicator of the effect of the declining solar magnetic field can be seen in the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux.
This can be checked on a daily basis at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database
Fig 6 Neutron count since 1964 from the Oulu data base.
The Dec 2009 neutron maximum ( solar cycle 23 -24 minimum) is greater than anything seen previously and the neutron count is now (Nov 2012) higher than at any comparable time in previous cycles since we are only 12 -18 months away from the cycle 24 solar maximum.There was a secular change in solar magnetism in 2005 – check the WUWT link posted earlier. The neutron count ties to earths climate via cloud cover and albedo. Simply put – the lower the neutron count the lower the cloud cover and the warmer the temperature. Because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year lag between the neutron troughs and global SSTs. The short term temperature record is variable over shorter times than 12 years because of El Ninos and La Ninas and volcanic and lunar effects but the increasingly lower counts on the three troughs from 1970 – 1991 are well matched by the temperature rise from 1981 – 2003. THE RELATIVELY HIGH NEUTRON COUNT IN 2012 COMPARED WITH 1970 SUGGESTS THAT BY 2024 GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WILL BE BELOW THOSE OF 1970 WHICH WERE ALREADY BELOW 2012 BY ABOUT 0.36 C.
4. Check the Southern Oscillation Index.
Fig 7 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
In Fig 7 values above +8 indicate La Ninas, values below -8 are El Ninos and values in betwen are neutral or La Nadas.
Figure 7 also has some predictive value relative to global temperatures. ( Mclean et al JGR 2009) Global temperatures appear to lag the SOI by about 7 months.
5. Climate , Weather and Extreme Events.
Sections 1 – 4 above show that the earth has entered a cooling trend which will continue for at least 30 years and perhaps longer. To get some idea of possible extreme weather events we might look at extremes found between the MWP and the Little Ice Age. It is unlikely however that any future extremes will be “unprecedented”.There is a large literature on this topic which interested parties can consult.Some general empirical observations can be made.
On a cooling earth there is a steeper temperature gradient from the Tropics to the Poles. This produces instabilities with the jet stream swinging meridionally further south and north. Thus blocking high pressure systems develop with extremes of cold and heat and sharp temperature gradients between air masses with for example Sandy type blizzards or tornado swarms. A cooler world will be a generally drier world with increasing droughts globally and in e.g the USA corn belt and in the USA in general When combined with shorter growing seasons and possible early and late frosts this is likely to threaten world food production as population increases.
The PDO and SOI indices are the main ocean climate and weather indicators.Obviously ,for regional analyses at particular times, the phases of other ocean systems relative to the first two – for the U.S for example the AMO and NAO need to be considered. These are easily checked by looking from time to time at the work of the best climate and weather interpreters Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi on http://www.icecap.us/
6.Summary of some Future Trends and Policy Suggestions.
The empirical observations highlighted in CAPITALS above indicate that the global warming temperature trend has peaked .The peak is broad with only a little cooling to date but this will likely accelerate from 2015 or 2016 on reflecting the beginning of the increase in the cosmic ray count already seen from 2004 – 2009 in Fig 6. The cooling will last until 2030- 2040. Often the signal for a climate direction change is a see saw effect between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is still reflecting the peak in the warming trend with low summer ice values.
The first indication of a cooling event is however the increase in Antarctic sea ice which has already occurred.
This alters the oceanic deep water circulation patterns and spreads the cooling world wide. The Arctic ice will begin to catch up in a five years or so.
With a cooling world sea levels will stop rising and begin to fall as glaciers and ice caps begin to increase and the oceans compress with cooling.Eventually the rate of CO2 increase will slow and may even reverse even if human emissions continue to rise .
Because the error bars in our rough estimates of natural temperature variations are larger than any possible
As usual, the solar/cosmic ray data are muddled and cherry picked to have the desired effect.E.g. the cosmic ray intensity, compare with: http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
Hermanus has the longest record. It is very difficult to maintain a correct long-term stability and Oulu is one of the stations that seem to have problems in that regard. Here is more on the long-term variation of solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Section 4: “El Ninos are more common during the positve phase of the PDP ”
Shouldn’t that be PDO?
According to UN predictions, the world’s population is likely to peak in the next 20 to 40 years anyway. In my opinion, the peak is much closer, more like 10 to 20 years.
If you extend Fig5 back to the so-called Minoan Warm Period, c. 3300 years ago, the downward trend of global temperature is even more pronounced. Yet that warm period wasn’t even the hottest part of the Holocene, which occurred during the Climatic Optimum, at various points prior to 5000 years ago.
Now that my “snowblowers” have grown up and moved out, maybe I should buy one that runs on gas?
The introductory paragraph is excellent. Sums it up nicely.
However the rest of the post lacks pocus, seems bit rambling and does not make the point particarly well.
On Figure 4, that looks like a true peak to me. That is not good.
“The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. ”
I think you are correct. My guess is that’s why UEA is asking for openess now, instead of concensus. They are seeing the writing on the wall too……
The IPCC fraud was to take the rising phase of long established natural variation and pretend it will continue to rise for the next 100 years.
They’ve got a lot of people suckered.
http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
Discrepancy in war years is due to many hurricanes being missed due to shipping disruption.
(Vecchi and Knutson 2008)
Let’s say c02 has raised 8.5 %, is that anthropogenic. How come no one seems to differentiate, when talking c02 rise, between natural and anthropogenic.
Ya but the rise in c02 will mellow out the coming cool period. Do not decrease, increase 🙂
Because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year lag between the neutron troughs and global SSTs.
I very much doubt this. And given this is the period of the solar cycle, I’d suggest you have the wrong sign on the effect.
“In general ,food stocks should be built up, GM seeds adapted to drought and cold should be developed.The use of ethanol from food stocks is criminal folly and all subsidies and mandates should be abolished immediately.”
Yet thanks to Larry Summers (ex Goldman Sachs) and current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner the Clinton administration pass the ‘Commodity Futures Modernization Act’ which became law in 2000. This allowed large grain companies to turn the food markets into commodity funds like the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index for everything from corn to coffee and pigs — so now the US does not have a Grain Reserve but lots of rich bankers and hedge funds betting on the grain prices. As the rules were set to prevent short selling, prices ratchet continually upward – lots of happy money men driving around in their corn fueled flex-fuel vehicles,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/getting-used-to-life-without-food/25483
Unfortunately, the poor cannot eat complex derivatives – and currently “a child dies every 5 seconds from hunger”
Now as the grow-lines start moving south and even equatorward of the grow-lines, the weather becomes less crop friendly, those grain reserves would have been useful. However, if we are indeed looking at more than 10 years of cooling – it will mean world wide disaster. And the hedge funds and bankers will profit from the famine as even more people die – aren’t they clever bankers.
You’ve made a definite verifiable prediction, but it will take a considerable time to decide. The current values are an up tick. If the longer term trend continues, the CAGW people are in real trouble, and will implode. If the up tick continues, even briefly, they will still have talking points. Neither their ideas nor yours can be confirmed or denied on a decadal basis.
Yeah, who you gonna believe?
Al Gore or those lying thermometers?
So what?
No, no, no!
Can’t believe that, here in Italy this night the news just told me that in 2060 there will be no difference between winters and summers!
Dr. Page is surely wrong, TV media can’t lie on that.
(It’s sarcastic of course, this morning we get a nice +3°C nearby Milan)
Much as I’ve been saying since 2008 and furthermore I’ve suggested a variety of mechanisms that fit observations.It appears to be solar wavelength and particle effects altering the ozone balance in the atmosphere so as to swing the AO and AAO between positive and negative.
I notice though that the writer supports the cosmic ray link to cloudiness whilst acknowledging greater jetstream movement which would inevitably produce more clouds and that latter proposition is more likely in my view.
Cosmic rays just being one of several proxies for the level of solar activity but having little causal influence if any in themselves.
Amen to that Gunga.
lsvalgaard says:
November 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Sorry Leif. I have some problems at the moment and can’t read long explanations due to lack of concentration among other things. (No worries, I know what the problem is and am working to fix it.)
I know you have problems with the Oulu readings and that they are an outlier. Are the other stations with problems on a similar latitude?
Is there any other reason than that it is an outlier that you have problems with it? (Outliers are not always wrong.)
DaveE.
The alarmism over global warming is misplaced. Global cooling is the real threat. Look at what happened before the Holocene [Holocene = past ≈10,000 years].
If you want the weather to change, hang around for like 30 – 70 years
Want the Climate to change.. just wait 30-70 years! http://www.ironmill.com/2012/11/19/global-cooling-in-the-near-future/
For many reasons it seems likely there are 3 possibilities of merit
that can happen from here regarding climate theory.
We have 16 going on 17 years of zero trend in temperature. The MET
(British meteorological) office admitted this in an article in the
Daily Mail several weeks ago. The debate has been fierce. This is
even with the various adjustments that are made constantly to the
temperature data which have a suspicious bias to 100% of the time
adjust our measurements to show higher temps. Nonetheless even
accepting all these suspicious adjustments we are left with 16 years
of no movement. Even the agw crowd including Hansen and Gavin Schmidt
etc… Seem to have accepted what seems like an inconvenient
statistical improbability. They admit it is so.
The agw enthusiasts are admitting that 20 years would be only A 2%
chance event and likely prove the agw theory to be essentially dead as
is. So a couple years should pretty much decide this. I will
disregard that they’ve said forever that an 8 or 10 year pause was
fine but 15 would be the death but now we’ve got 16 or 17 flat and
they believe 15 is not that remarkable so they want another 5 years.
Similarly a lot of skeptics believe that natural variability was
responsible for the majority of the climb between 1978-1998. The
iPcc said that climb was so far outside the bounds of natural
variability that it was irrefutable evidence of Mankinds involvement.
They used that to argue that nothing could stop co2 that was in the
natural variability because natural variability could not cause a 20
year rise. However apparently co2 can and has apparently been trumped
for 16 years in a row. It is troublesome they can’t say why this
pause has taken place or where the missing energy is but nonetheless
they seem undiminished in their faith as good disciples of their
religion. One can only admire their faith.
I know those on the agw side are caterwauling as I write this as they
always do when confronted with this annoying pause “it has been hot”
they say. 2000s were hotter than 1990s. Yeah we know that but that’s
not what you said. You said it was going to be roughly 0.4C warmer
today than it was 20 years ago and it hasn’t moved a smidgen. That’s
not confirmation. That’s a problem. Yes temperatures haven’t gone
down but the natural variability folks have argued that this is
because the sun has been active and the PDO cycle was positive. So
they are not arguing things should have gotten cooler over the last 16
years either. The argument has been about which theory was right or
wrong.
The folks who believe that natural variability driven mainly by the
PDO 60 year cycle now are asserting that we are definitely in a down
cycle of PDO. Also those who believe solar variability was a factor
in late 20th century warming also agree that the sun has become more
quiescent. As a result they are all predicting a decline over the
next 20-40 years. Both camps of these folks expect temperatures to
decline starting very soon maybe next year.
There is a third possibility which I have elected generally which is
that these other factors are not accounted for in the models by the
agw theory but that co2 has some effect. Given this possibly the 2
things compensate for each other so I see a third possibility that
temps basically don’t go anywhere for 10 or 20 years.
These 3 theories are all at a critical juncture. If co2 really
overwhelms natural variability then the agw crowd really needs the
temps to start accelerating in the next couple years. Time is
effectively up. They don’t have 15 more years to wait. It’s over.
This is put up or shut up time. Not even the intelligentsia accept
the idea of 20 year zero or close to zero warming. On the other hand
those claiming that temperatures are not being influenced by co2 very
much are clearly on the line as well. They need temps to start
declining over the next few years if the theory of sun or PDO are
still intact because these indicators have now gone decidedly
negative. A further push upward would violate their models and
descriptions as much as a cold surge would almost surely crush agw
theory.
If we see flat temps for the next 2 years then I think we see that
these things must be offsetting each other.
Therefore we could do several things. We could have a party in a
couple years and possibly the losers pay for the party. We could have
bets or other humiliating acts. For instance those that believe in
agw – if their theory is proven wrong may have to endure swimming in
Ice cold river for an hour. If it turns out the natural variability
folks win then maybe they have to walk in the hot dessert for a
weekend or something.
I guess if I’m right then maybe I get a vacation in Hawaii for a
month. :). if I’m wrong maybe I have to do half of what the
proponents of the theories will have to do. 🙂
The stage is set. The la Nina year is set – the pacific ocean is
telling us next year is going to be cold. The sun is quiescent. .
PDO is negative. Sun is negative. On the other hand the limit of
natural variability is being reached according to even the most
stalwart agw religious zealots. Therefore if co2 is the overwhelming
factor in climate the agw adherents believe then co2 has finally come
to show itself after 17 years. There’s no point in debating this
anymore. The predictions are cast in stone.
If its cool then I think the agw folks have to have a come to Jesus
confession and admit that their religion has some serious flaws and
apparently co2 isn’t the devil they believe it is.
If we get a soaring hot year next year and the year after worldwide
then nothing in the other theories could explain that they would have
to admit that co2 must be having a big effect.
The time for endless debate is over. Now the dice are cast and I
think nature will tell us the answer over the next year or two.
🙂
A recent letter from the nonsensically titled ‘Minister of Climate Change’ in New Zealand confirms the worst. The climate change agenda and policies have now almost nothing whatsoever to do with ‘global warming’ and CO2. This tenuous and simplistic relationship was only the game starter. It has now been safely (from a political perspective) morphed by the socialist-green agenda into a climate change catastrophy and euphemistically laid at the feet of any and all anthropogenic influences. There is no attempt to attribute causation scientifically. Anthropogenic ‘influence’ alone is sufficient raison d’etre to impose policy at the frightful cost of human impoverishment, energy inefficiency and shrinking freedom. In New Zealand it is starting. The high quality aluminium smelter at Bluff is faced with the perfect storm. A market downturn for high quality aluminium and massively increased power price at the hands of Meridian Energy (Government owned), who pride themselves on their wind and hydro generation. The tax payer paid for all the hydro development in the last generation and 60% of all power generated in New Zealand comes from this source. The costs per unit have continued to climb in order to promote renewable energy targets (RET’s), in this case, wind power. If the Bluff smelter closes, which appears possible, this will perfectly characterise the dawn of the new age of impoverishment and hopelessness at the hands of the agenda driven ‘Ministry of We Know Best’. The irony here, if indeed there is one when so much human suffering in the form of joblessness is present, is that the incumbent government in New Zealand is centrist tinted ‘blue’.
The horrific extent of the crimes of the warmists/alarmists are likely to become apparent within a decade. The deceit based diversion of political will to carbon dioxide emission reduction from preparations for the coming major fall in global temperature will cost many lives, possibly hundreds of millions or more, should a Maunder minimum be about to descend upon us.
It will soon become clear that grain production in the Northern hemisphere is about to collapse as the growing zones move southward hundreds of kilometres. It will be clear that the recent “good years” surpluses should have been preserved and stored for the decades of low food production which lie on our immediate horizon. Instead the cupboard is bare and we may only have wind generators to keep us warm. Its just a shame they don’t burn – the wind generators, that is.
Stay cool….
Has there been any explanation/excuse for IPCC not being invited to Doha?
The politics of AGW must be observed acutely. This was a political expedient that has run amuck. Neither evidence nor argument will change the minds of a whole generation. They will still be trying to stop carbon emissions when they are skating on the Thames and the Rhine.It is reported that the consequences of winter of 1708-9 included 600,000 deaths in France alone from starvation by 1710.
What is to be done?
I plotted the whole series. This series is already using the modified numbers with the “cooled past” right? So, even with the cooled, past, the last dozen to 16 or so years seem to have deviate from the “follows CO2” mantra. Can anyone tell me if this is the new and improved NOAA data??? Are they going to cool, 1998 through 2005 to show we are still warming?
Massimo PORZIO says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Personally, I have a hard time believing the summers will be quite that cold.
I have a simple question.
What is the level of accuracy (confidence level as a %) for the global temperature used for 1860 in the various data sets?
Just curious………
Well, we will be cold. Our machines and systems will need to be modified to function properly in the cold temperatures. We will need to adjust our agricultural and live stock practices. However, barring a “green” revolution, we should have the energy and resources required to survive and even prosper during a general cooling.
The best part is that we will not be subject to mindless extortion for purposes of redistributive change and to artificially advance politicians, scientists, and activists political, economic, and social standing.
No. Wait. They already changed the marketing platform to focus on climate “change”. It seems they have configured the system so that we lose whether the winds blow cool or warm.
@ OssQss: you wrote: “What is the level of accuracy (confidence level as a %) for the global temperature used for 1860 in the various data sets?”
The level of accuracy must have been very high indeed. They had super duper mercury thermometers calibrated at two points using boiling water and ice bath’s at sea level. According to the numbers they use, the must have been good to within 0.0001 degree… so that would be +/- 100 millionths. Sorry I know that’s not what you were asking, but I could not resist.
And, to top it all off, the rate of change of CO2 is almost perfectly correlated affinely with temperature, which means that human inputs are rapidly sequestered and have virtually no impact on atmospheric concentration. Not only is the global temperature metric careening toward the cliff, but we aren’t even sitting near the front of the bus, much less at the wheel.
At least, in the future, we will be able to restrain the hubris of politicized science simply by making reference to the Great Climate Change Fiasco of the early 21st century.
Bart says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:53 pm
The missing link.
OssQss says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm
“What is the level of accuracy (confidence level as a %) for the global temperature used for 1860 in the various data sets?”
Probably not very, but please don’t adjust it! Oh, wait…
Mario Lento,
Thermometer accuracy is not important in determining a trend. The same mercury thermometers used for the past several centuries in compiling the Central England Temperature record show a steady warming trend, which has not accelerated in modern times. If the thermometer’s accuracy is off by a degree or two, it will still show the long term temperature trend.
Despite a rise in CO2 from about 280 ppmv to today’s 394 ppmv, the long term global warming trend has not accelerated. Conclusion: CO2 has no measurable effect on the global temperature.
mitigatedsceptic says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Has there been any explanation/excuse for IPCC not being invited to Doha?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are a lightning rod for the science discussion, and they don’t want to discuss the science. Without them in the room, any tough questions about the science don’t result in scientists stuttering and fumbling for answers. The science is settled will be the answer, now let;s move on to strangling freedoms and economies.
But there’s another game afoot, and that is to move many of the important agenda items to another forum, mainly the MEF (Major Economics Forum). Watch for the alarmist proposals to be slid in through the back door at the MEF just like carbon taxes in the US were slid in the back door using the EPA.
The MEF doesn’t get near the coverage in the first place, economics is just not that exciting a thing to report on. This appears to be the brainchild of the Obama administration. Get the discussion out of the public eye, away from the NGO’s, and slide an agreement in pieces through the MEF with the world the none the wiser.
The good news is that China will tell them to p*ss off, as will Russia, India and Brazil. Canada and Japan will both use that as an excuse not to do anything either. But don’t cheer the impending death of the Doha round because what we have to fight now is worse: a deal being done that the public doesn’t know about and isn’t immediately obvious as a “climate deal” but just as damaging in the long run. Backroom politics at the global level is not a good thing.
logiclogiclogic says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Me? I don’t know. Add that as theory four..
DaveE.
The changes to the jet stream that am seeing are pointing towards climate cooling.
Because the jet stream is making bigger movements towards the north and the south, means it will end up flowing over a larger area of the earth’s suface. Which is very likely to lead to a increase in cloud cover.
Also with this greater movement it will allow the increased risk of letting winter bed in early over the NH landmasses.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“I notice though that the writer supports the cosmic ray link to cloudiness whilst acknowledging greater jetstream movement…”
On the jet stream business, wouldn’t a quiet sun mean less UV heating of the stratosphere and therefore less poleward movement in the stratosphere? This would mean less Coriolis force and less swirl in the polar vortex, so that the cold air masses would simply flow down the continental interiors instead of mixing randomly in systems that progress west to east? This fits with recent work that indicates that continental interiors are especially cold during intervals of quiet sun.
There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2 and natural cycles with volcanoes and sun spots playing a lesser role. Examples are:
– The posting by Tallbloke mentioned above,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/
– The modelling work on my own site:
http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php
– The paper by Zhou, J., and K. Tung, 2012 (mentioned here recently).
The thrust of all these papers/postings is that CO2 and natural cycles influence climate (expressed as global mean temperature) by a similar order of magnitude. Tallbloke favours 30% CO2 but up to 50%, I go for 50% +/- 10%, Zhou and Tung go for 50%. If this is the case, the implications are huge.
1. Half of the rapid warming at the end of the last century was natural. The IPCC models assume it all was. They are therefore out by a factor of two. However many nations and international organisations have made countering the impact of the high predictions part of their energy strategy. (Only yesterday I sent a link to a new World Bank paper looking at a 4 °C temperature rise). It will be difficult to reverse this momentum.
2. I don’t imagine many of those behind realclimate.org and kindred sites will find it easy to admit that only half the warming was anthropogenic. On the other hand, many contributors to this site would find it equally hard to admit that only half the warming was natural. In short, few of those who have taken polarised positions would be comfortable with a CO2/natural balance. The fact that the narrow IPCC related climate science community is pushing extreme events suggests that they may be aware of this and are developing an exit/transition strategy which will enable them to keep the grants rolling in.
The next few years are going to be interesting.
We’re all going to freeze!
We’re doomed!
Dr. Page’s analysis and conclusions are consistent with mine, as from my speech in April 2012 to chemical engineers in Lis Angeles.
Transcript and slides are at:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html?m=0
We are extremely ill-prepared for the coming cooling. Part III of the speech, “Implications”, describes some of what we can expect. We must have policy changes very soon to meet the challenges ahead.
Some of us have been saying this kind of thing for a long time now. We must remain true to our principles and one of them essentially says correlation is not causation. Admittedly just as tempting for skeptics like me as it is for the AGW believers. Just a little philosophical reminder.
The experts of climatology have been insisting that cycle do not occur naturally.Hence the linear response of their models.The cycles apparent in the data are just noise, after all, are we to believe the govt provided experts or our lying eyes? If I thought CO2 was a potent warming gas I would be planning some major burns real soon..
logiclogiclogic says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm
The agw enthusiasts are admitting that 20 years would be only A 2%
chance event and likely prove the agw theory to be essentially dead as
is. So a couple years should pretty much decide this. I will
disregard that they’ve said forever that an 8 or 10 year pause was
fine but 15 would be the death but now we’ve got 16 or 17 flat and
they believe 15 is not that remarkable so they want another 5 years.
==============
In a couple more years they will say 20 years is not significant, another 5 is needed. No amount of time will ever be accepted as having falsified AGW. The 20 years of rising temps before the current leveling were taken as certain proof that AGW was correct, thus any evidence showing it is not correct must be false..
Only a month and change until the big whammy! 🙂
Dr. Norman Page writes: “I included Fig 2 because an approximate 60 year cycle is obvious by inspection and this coincides well with the 30 year +/- positive (warm) and 30year +/ negative (cold) phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
The PDO is inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal timescales so there cannot be cause and effect based on the PDO.
ogiclogiclogic says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm
For many reasons it seems likely there are 3 possibilities of merit
that can happen from here regarding climate theory….
These 3 theories are all at a critical juncture….
The time for endless debate is over. Now the dice are cast and I
think nature will tell us the answer over the next year or two.
________________________________
Actually if the natural cycles theory is correct you will see changes.
1. From a El Niño dominated ENSO to a La Niña dominated ENSO.
2. The jet stream going from zonal to meridional
We are already seeing the results of the jets going meridional, blocking highs, Sandy and the cold waves I listed in an earlier comment today link.
Looks like the Northern Hemisphere snow cover is off to a good start according to NOAA. State of the Climate Global Snow & Ice October 2012
mitigatedsceptic says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm
….They will still be trying to stop carbon emissions when they are skating on the Thames and the Rhine.It is reported that the consequences of winter of 1708-9 included 600,000 deaths in France alone from starvation by 1710.
What is to be done?
______________________________________
The deaths have already started.
Hypothermia deaths double over five years
More than 2,500 people in England and Wales are likely to perish from cold in the week leading up to Christmas, experts said today… estimated 40,000 more people die between December and March
In 2008 there were food riots in over thirty countries.
If as some think we are headed into another ‘little Ice Age’ I would not want to be a professor sitting in a college in a big city when (Not if) the food riots start.
US Foodstamp Usage Rises To New Record High
According to Shadow Statistics the real unemployment rate rose from ~21% to 23% since Obama took office. But that is alright Obama is going to give us Obamacare, remove all those pesky Coal plants and tax us some more.
Even worse Something unimaginable has taken place in the US where a handful of soldiers tried to stage a coup in the US.
I am not sure the Ivory Tower types realize they are playing with fire when they move people out of their comfort zone into third world conditions for a trumped up reason.
If you want to stay true to español, try Las Niñas, Los Niños, and Las Nadas.
The other side already pulled a CYA by saying there could be a cooling period after which the climate would rapidly shift back to the predicted behavior according to models. Thus, they gave themselves another decade or two of wiggle room. Except, the public will not buy it.
Indeed, energy is the central factor driving our opportunities for the future. It is incorrect to say we are running out of energy. We have many centuries of fuel in hand now.
The very important point made about birth rates should not be overlooked. LIfe on the planet will be better with a high per capita energy consumption economy. Think Star Trek. That’s sooo much better than the Tijuana life world-wide. The other side tries to sell a Little-House-on-the-Prairie mythical future of low per capita energy consumption. Well, here’s that little house:
http://www.kansastravel.org/littlehouseontheprairie.htm
Now tell me that’s where you really want to live.
OssQss says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm
I have a simple question.
What is the level of accuracy (confidence level as a %) for the global temperature used for 1860 in the various data sets?
________________________
A.J. Strata has done that analysis. link
Sorry, I believe in the Global Cooling prophecy as much as I believe in the Global Warming prophecy.
I think we need some way to forecast the natural cycles.
It looks like the Sun is slowing down (but the TSI numbers are just slightly below that expected and, technically, our Sun is a very, very stable Star). Its surface temperature only varies between 5,779.5K and 5,780.5K. I don’t see the Sun having the type of impact needed to produce a significant cooling trend.
The PDO and, actually much more importantly, the cooler waters at depth in the wide-equatorial Pacific looks to leave the ENSO in La Nina / Neutral conditions for the next year or so but beyond that, there is no way to forecast it. Maybe it will stay cool for an extended period and then cool off the planet (which it would do if it stayed La Nina / Neutral for an extended period) but we just can’t forecast that.
The AMO is just as important as the ENSO and it has been quite high recently but we have no way to really forecast the downturn that is expected. And the AMO is expected to cool down but we might as well just call that an instinct equivalent to “what goes up, must come down”.
The southern ocean and especially the far south, southern ocean has been cooling down alot for the last several years and this might be one thing to look at in terms of predicting how the rest of the world’s oceans will respond. But maybe it is temporary blip.
There does appear to be some type of 60 year natural cycle in the Earth’s climate over the last 150 years (and this is very, very clear) but we do not know if it stays that regular or varies by a large amount.
We need something more solid to forecast the downturn(s).
Ron Manley says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm
There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2 and natural cycles with volcanoes and sun spots playing a lesser role….
1. Half of the rapid warming at the end of the last century was natural….
2. I don’t imagine many of those behind realclimate.org and kindred sites will find it easy to admit that only half the warming was anthropogenic….
_________________________________
I CALL logical fallacy.
CO2 is not all from humans. Only a small amount is. As the oceans warmed from the increased sunlight during the Holocene interglacial they RELEASED CO2.
Both Beck’s compilation of early CO2 measurements and plant stomata data show the CO2 levels are higher and more variable.
Mike Mann is not the only one who constructed a hockey stick. The accepted CO2 readings are too. A layman’s read of the mess can be found here.
1. Half of the rapid warming at the end of the last century was natural.
And half was spurious – unpainted Stevenson screens and minimum temperatures increased by decreased aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds.
I read a blog by Gavin today that he said 20 year haitus would be a 2% chance occurrence. Granted that’s not 100% disproof but if they modify the models to include cyclic phenomenon like the 60 year PDO and the 1000 year cycle then they might be able to fudge a way to say that CO2 is still important but its going to take longer and still keep their high feedback models and alarmist statements.
The problem is if they take back a word they said 10 years ago they are in deep trouble. They said the science was “settled.” They said they were 95% to 98% certain that CO2 was dominant factor in the temperature. They said 3C by 2100 (+- 1.5C). They said all this and if they withdraw one thing they will be in terrible shape with the public. Suddenly all the climate-gate all the theories of the “idiot” denialists anti-science will look not so bad. There will be investigations to find out how people said these things. People won’t believe them and there will be scorn. We see this in Britain against the MET already. The brits have been besieged with cold years so many times in a row when the MET said the opposite they’ve now become an object of derision.
That’s the problem I see they must in AR5 keep all the things they said before because they have vilified anyone who doesn’t believe every word they spout that as soon as one of their “promises” turns out to be something they have to retract then I believe the heads will fly. So, somehow they have to justify a 3C change by 2100. They will have to keep the rhetoric. Extreme weather may play fine with the public but the damage will be done if we don’t see temps move in the next year or two and they say in AR5 things are going swimingly. They are constrained to raise the stakes in the ponzi game they are running.
Tonight I got the following message from a friend:
” While reading Macleans with my lunch I came across the following item (page 8 Oct. 29th issue – “Good News” item as follows: “Cool It” New climate data from the U.K.’s meteorological office show that between 1997 and 2012 there was a pause in global warming, reported the Daily Mail. Scientists were quick to discount the newspaper’s declaration that “global warming stopped 16 years ago,” but the data has raised questions about just how fast global warming is happening and whether dire forecasting models are taking into account periods of reduced warming.”
So, I think congratulations are in order for Macleans, as they probably the only news outlet in north America to give the ‘other side’ of the global warming story.
Gail Combs says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Thank you Gail
Now my next question is do we have data as to sample rates over time with respect to global sites used for such Global Temp assessments ?
I seem to recall a time when we had many thousands more than we use now. A trend if you will?
With respect to the meridional jets in your other post,,,,,,, was the Russian Heat Wave, that some claimed were the worst for 1,000 years in that area, some of the same symptom?
On Farceboek I commented:
stimulated by reading Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age (PDF)
Leif Svalgaard,
In Usoskin’s figure 2, there are 2 curves showing a Grand modern maximum, the group sunspot number and 10Be from Greenland. What is, in your opinion, wrong with the latter ?
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
Hoser says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm
…. Well, here’s that little house:
http://www.kansastravel.org/littlehouseontheprairie.htm
Now tell me that’s where you really want to live.
____________________________
Looks like the old tobacco sheds that dot the landscape in my neck of the woods.
Having rented a house in upper state New York built in the 1830’s with no central heating and no way to heat the upstairs at all – NO THANK YOU! I do not like wearing stocking caps to bed and freezing my feet off every morning. Perhaps if more activists had spent a lot of time following the north end of a south facing mule they would not be so fascinated by the ‘simple life’ and more appreciative of energy saving devices. Heck some of the more idiotic want to do away with domestic animals as well as CO2. How the heck do they think fields are going to get plowed without internal combustion engines or at least a team of mules or oxen, like this?
David A. Evans says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I know you have problems with the Oulu readings and that they are an outlier. Are the other stations with problems on a similar latitude?
Is there any other reason than that it is an outlier that you have problems with it?
Other stations don’t show such high counts at the latest minimum:
http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Thule.png the red curve is Oulu
http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Hermanus.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitor-Thule-Newark.png
etc
leif, looks like 3 of 5 of your cosmic ray plots look surprisingly similar to Oulu…you should have stuck with the top one. Biased?
Are you inferring that the accepted CO2 readings are somehow ‘constructed’? What is your basis for making this statement?
.
Sorry, but there is no global temperature. So your premise is just as wrong as anyone saying the non-existent metric is getting higher.
Talk about hedging your bets, prior to the global warming scare climate scientists (some of the same ones now predicting catastrophic warming) were predicting an ice age.
You would think they would be happy their gravy train will continue with another climate scare.
There’s no pleasing some people!
On a more sensible note, I personally agree with most of the article and prediction of cooling. It is incredible that Governments have not been encouraging research into effects of cooling, cheaper energy production and the growth of crops resistant to a cooling climate – which will be far more devastating than any predicted global warming.
You can call me a “Coolist”
Or just Cool. : >)
Hmmm … isn’t this just seasonal in nature? For instance, we in Texas don’t get cold fronts moving through here (as a rule) in July *but* we do start getting them starting about September …
Comparisons, then need to be taken along a baseline, comparing how this year differs from some average derived from previous years.
.
Would love to see a plot of all cosmic ray monitoring stations and thier locations to see which locations are similar to oulu and which are not. Geomagnetic variability by location?
I don’t want to put you all down or something, but I think dr. Page forgot the most important parameter. What earth does with incoming energy is a bit of a puzzle, because of there being so many factors that influence this. But by looking at maximum temperatures you get a sense of what change is happening in the amount of energy coming in.
here is my best fit for maxima:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Note that we are on a cooling curve since 1995 but obviously there is some lag on the means because of a number of factors. However, it seems earth stores of energy are getting a bit empty now and cooler weather is happening already. Acceleration of cooling is now at its highest rate which means that we will have some extreme weather events like big storm and big freezes… .
If you think it about it, my sine wave suggests an uptrend warming curve from 1927,
I ask: do we really have an accurate global record base to speak of from before 1927? If you think we do, show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer, from say, around 1920?
My best fit sine wave also suggests that between 1950-1972 there was no cooling. If there was, it did not come from the sun but from something that happened on earth (perhaps the exploding of atomic bombs?). People started using better equipment (recorders!) and perhaps they still measured some lag from the negative warming from 1927-1950
To prove this is fairly easy;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar?
count back 2012-88= 1924.
By 1945 all that ice lost was back.
it will happen again. Mark my words. In two decades from now, all the arctic ice losses reported will be back.
In hindsight, though, looking back, I realize now that I have been extremely lucky. For some odd reason I could only get complete reliable daily data going back to 1974 from most stations. That is just after the tipping point of 1972 which is now apparent from my sine waves. So when analyzing these data from 47 weather stations and putting it together in a global result I found a beautiful relationship of the speed in warming degrees C/ year versus time curving down, like as if somebody was throwing me a ball. Had I taken data from before 1972 everything would have been totally mixed up and I might never have picked up any relationship at all…..no ball to catch… Although, lucky…. as you know I don’t believe in luck, so let me say that I was extremely blessed.
Note that every weather station has its own sine wave. Note the sine wave of Anchorage which I have published now below my global curve. Now ask the tomatoes farmers in Anchorage about their crops?
Don’t think it it going to get better soon. Like dr. Page says, the next two or three decades will be cold, or colder, or coldest…..especially in winter.
but count back 88 years and you will realize that we have been there before and we all came through…..
Don’t worry about the carbon, start worrying a bit about the coming common cold…..
Hot under the collar says:
November 19, 2012 at 9:16 pm
You can call me a “Coolist”
Or just Cool. : >)
Sorry… I can’t resist… Just don’t be a culo.
logiclogiclogic says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Up, down, or about the same
David A. Evans says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Me? I don’t know. Add that as theory four..
Now: up, down, about the same, and “don’t know” logically complete, except for more or less random for a while yet.
Now five cases: up, down, about the same, “don’t know”, and wandering.
And don’t forget cheating.
Everyone voting and counting on global cooling: “Don’t count your hatching before they chick.” Global temperature is variable enough to confuse the issue for years more yet.
IPCC? Surely they can * more than a CC. Probably an old unfunny joke, but I just though of it.
And I must thank Gail Combs on yet another thread for finding things for me.
logiclogiclogic, I don’t think you are accurate when you use “logic” to conclude, There’s no point in debating this anymore. The predictions are cast in stone.
If its cool then I think the agw folks have to have a come to Jesus confession and admit that their religion has some serious flaws and apparently co2 isn’t the devil they believe it is.
If we get a soaring hot year next year and the year after worldwide then nothing in the other theories could explain that they would have to admit that co2 must be having a big effect.
The problem is that the warmists are not logical. Much of the data is tampered with and much is not data at all. So even if its getting slightly cooler, which some of the untampered data suggest, and next year is cooler, we’re still going to hear about it the 5th warmest year in such and such had the driest, hottest year globally since 1856 (something along those lines).
Like Mario Lento says: This series is already using the modified numbers with the “cooled past” right? So, even with the cooled, past, the last dozen to 16 or so years seem to have deviate from the “follows CO2″ mantra. Can anyone tell me if this is the new and improved NOAA data??? Are they going to cool, 1998 through 2005 to show we are still warming?
Come on, what were the figures from this last season? 137 high temperatures broken is all we heard about in the news, when the real story in that same period was over 3000 low temperatures were broken!
It’s hard to wade through the incredibly creative ways to misrepresent what is really happening–the 137 record highs was truthful–its what they didn’t mention that told the real story! So don’t count on the academics who receive grants or the complicit media to give the real picture with real data—it may well be much cooler this year and next but we will still hear about how hot it is and all the high records broken—We’re going to need ice invading us from both poles and many many crop failures and deaths due to cold before we see an honest about face.
Thank you Dr.Page for a hard-hitting no-nonsense Summary For Policy Questioners. The links you provide are extremely valuable and drilling down on them very fruitful. Thank you again.
I believe this is as wrong as the global warming. Looking at the very long term trend not as linear but as cyclic we are on the slowly rising part of a sine wave but the period is so long that man is clearly totally irrelevant in its existence. The Roman , Medieval and current warm periods are a secondary or even tertiary cyclic wave superimposed. If you forget the fact it is climate and just treat it as you would an signal you had intercepted that you were looking to see if it concealed any information then look for any regular patterns as part of the exercise, the results suggest very little change either way compared to the changes resulting from the sixty year and nine hundred or so year cycles. It seems a strange thing that every climate science article seems to assume linear trends even after showing the dominant shorter term ones are basically sinusoidal.
Dear Dr. Page,
I dont believe the statement “THERE HAS NOW BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1997 -15 YEARS WITH CO2 RISING 8.5% WITH NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE. SINCE 2003 THE TREND IS NEGATIVE. ”
is correct. Please look at Lucia’s excellent posts on her blog for that topic in order to learn what can be said about recent trends with what statistical basis. Most people in this debate are growing more and more tired of unsustainable claims.
All the best regards,
LoN
eco-geek says: (November 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm)
“It will be clear that the recent “good years” surpluses should have been preserved and stored for the decades of low food production which lie on our immediate horizon.”
The greens will one day be trialed for that, since they promoted to make biofuel of food.
Ron Manley says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm
There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2 and natural cycles with volcanoes and sun spots playing a lesser role. Examples are:
– The posting by Tallbloke mentioned above,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/
My simple model gives around a third of the warming to each of;
Natural internal oscillation (ocean cycles)
Solar effect on ocean heat content (via Nir Shviv’s terrestrial amplification)
A mostly natural increase in co2 (See Bart’s plot above demonstrating partial temperature dependency of co2)
The co2 component may easily be something else like ozone changes due to solar EUV.
As the IPCC points out (reluctantly), there is a low level of understanding of 11 out of the 16 drivers they identify.
Who am I to disagree?
I predicted Global Cooling a couple of years ago….will be nice to be proven right
Don’t worry though warm-mongers and Climate “Scientists”. Whatever the weather does – warmer or colder – it is still “Climate Change” and you can blame it on CO2 from us rich white guy’s SUV’s. Your funding is safe.
Manfred says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:22 pm
What is, in your opinion, wrong with the latter ?
It is calibrated using the Group Sunspot Number, which is wrong http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
ed says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:57 pm
looks like 3 of 5 of your cosmic ray plots look surprisingly similar to Oulu…you should have stuck with the top one. Biased?
On the plots one of the curves is Oulu, the other ones is not. It is not surprising that the one that is Oulu looks like Oulu, and, no, the other stations are not biased.
Roger Sowell says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Have a look at Roger’s presentation – excellent.
@RockyRoad
“So what?
No, no, no!
Can’t believe that, here in Italy this night the news just told me that in 2060 there will be no difference between winters and summers!
Personally, I have a hard time believing the summers will be quite that cold.”
Maybe I was not clear, the TV News suggested us that we are facing summer-like winters in next years not vice versa.
It was a silly statement of course, I was ironic writing that post.
You must see the weather forecasters here in Italy in these days.
This summer they counted the so called “heat waves” stating that we got a new record of 7 waves in August, and now they are counting the “cyclones” per month arguing that we are facing an extreme climate pattern never been before.
Somebutnotall, as R.A. Wilson used to say. Many borderline believers will peel off and many outspoken alarmists will tone down their rhetoric.
Pochas asked:
“On the jet stream business, wouldn’t a quiet sun mean less UV heating of the stratosphere and therefore less poleward movement in the stratosphere”
In fact a quiet sun means less ozone destruction in stratosphere and mesosphere which both then warm (contrary to established climatology).
The warming is greatest aound the poles which pushes the tropopause height down at the poles relative to the height at the equator.
That causes the jets and climate zones to shift towards the equator.
Some recent evidence in support of that is the observation that from 2004 to 2007 ozone amounts increased above 45km despite the quieter sun.
It’s good to see mention of the 60 year cycle in this article, for when that cycle was rising in the 30 years before 1998-99 it was the cause of all the alarm. As a co-author of this article published today you will see that I believe all climate change can be explained by natural cycles. Apart from the superimposed 60 year cycle, there is evidence of a cycle of about 1,000 years which is approaching its next maximum since the MWP. So clearly the world can expect about 500 years of cooling starting perhaps within the next 50 to 200 years.
The real “big picture” referred to is the fact that nothing unnatural is going to make a dent on the massive amount of energy stored not only in the oceans and crust, but all the way down to the core. To bring about a significant, long-term warming (or cooling) in surface temperatures (even within a few thousand years) there would have to be an impossible flow of energy into or out of the whole Earth system.
The stabilising mechanism has nothing to do with the very low terrestrial heat flow: rather it has to do with the temperature which has been established over a billion years or more. So, if you question the brief mention of such in the above article, this page of explanation may help you follow the argument.
this is unprecedented. no wonder we are cooling. the Govenment is spending less money.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-has-closed-its-climate-change-research-office-2012-11
regards
Let’s assume Dr. Page is correct.
Let’s further assume that the Green/Left is successful in forcing through widespread ‘anti-carbon’ legislation — mainly making First World electricity prices many times higher and stifling Third World development.
The death toll from their actions would then dwarf anything that those other Comrades, Stalin and Mao, ever achieved. A Great Leap Forward, indeed!
And what will their excuse be? “We meant well.”
Unfortunately, the warmist tendency have spent the last decade getting people – mainly in school – to believe that ‘weird weather’ and more storms are a product of global warming. It should come as no surprise, when the storms and droughts which will naturally follow from global cooling, are also blamed on CO2 warming. People may start to freeze but they will be in the grip of the political hysteria that has built up over global warming. And the Gores and Manns of this world will continue to rip off the people.
ed says:
November 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Would love to see a plot of all cosmic ray monitoring stations and thier locations to see which locations are similar to oulu and which are not. Geomagnetic variability by location?
You sound somewhat desperate. There are not many stations with unbroken data going back many decades. The issue is not geomagnetic variability, but simply stability of the instruments over time.
Gee Norman is funny. I have just been reading the stuff he has written for Marc Morano. He has plagiarized all of the climate scientists predictions and current observations and presented them as HIS predictions. He has done no work of his own.
Consequently he is just as alarmist as the climate scientists in his so called “predictions”. The only difference is he attributes all this to solar cycles instead of increasing CO2.
I like the idea that the Pranksters on Olympus decided to send Sandy and a few extreme weather events in order to get the alarmists to go out on a limb again. I.e., I like the idea that they’ve been set up for a fall. That’s how the world works, according to Greek drama. It’s banana peels all the way down.
PS: The limb they’re on grows from the green bay tree.
Dr. Page
Cooling yes, but there are regional differences.
In the N. Hemisphere these are mainly due to the NAO (oscillating between two phases). Deflection of polar jet-stream causes different trends in Canada & Greenland to the W. Europe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Global temperature may ‘iron out’ these differences (even without interference with the data, which has became a large industry) so to for a particular region may mean very little.
For the future, the best guide is the past. ‘Extrapolation into the future, based on past trends, is in fact highly reliable if you have strong reason to believe that the underlying physical drivers of the system under study are not going to change.’
I did an extrapolation the CET , the longest and possibly most scrutinized regional record, with assumption that two main ingredients
– 350 year long overall 0.25C/century up-trend and
– three main multi-decadal spectral components
will persist for at least next 30 years (10% of known records)..
Result indeed points to significant regional cooling to 2030s.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
with further up/down oscillation
This is also supported by correlation to the geological records in the N. Atlantic (N. Atlantic precursor) and particularly ‘deep low’ shown by the solar activity’s extrapolation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Solar activity and geological events (volcanic eruptions and strong earthquakes combined) also appear to correlate
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
where the sunspots may only be an instrument of measure but not a direct cause.
The Ap index confirms the above
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
It could be speculated that the tectonic movements in the Atlantic and Pacific have an effect on the regional and finally global temperatures.
In the North Atlantic possible factor in the Atlantic-Arctic currents flows
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
In the Central Pacific possible factorin the behaviour of the South Equatorial current.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
In the North Pacific possible factor Kuroshio/Oyashio currents temperature balance (world’s third largest oceanic current system)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
Number of climate commentators attempt to explain climate change in terms of the AMO, El Nino, La Nina, cloud coverage etc. All of these are elements of the climate change itself, so explaining the climate change in terms of the climate change appears to be a circular argument.
My effort is directed at non-climate forces as possible factors based on the data from world’s major data bases.
Svalgaard of Stanford will tell you all the above is ‘spurious’ and perhaps we live on a ‘spurious’ planet where nothing is related to anything else..
Some points on this. (1) It is obvious to those that bother to check that the predictions of the IPCC are just plain wrong. (2) The issues begin addressed in the public forum are all political. (3) These forums are strongly biased toward using global warming as a rationale to impose the will of those benefiting from the global warming disaster conjecture. (4) Governments acted on the conjecture and, in fact, have imposed all sorts of what our Brit friends would call nutter ideas.
Imho, it would seem better to begin papers like this with simple political statements in order to focus the public to the political argument. Namely, state
“there can be no IPCC consenus if the facts do not support the IPCC conjectures. This paper shows the IPCC conjecture based on (A) is wrong.”
then proceed in the usual manner. A lot more will read a sentence or two and might even remember some of the content but most will simply not wade through the detail. Even if carefully left throught by Lief or Anthony or Lort Monckton or ….
Oh, and use some slogans/bites/ad things. For instant article at the conclusion, something along the lines “Energy if life. Cheap energy is freedom for women”. And note: It’s not “ideological” or “partisan” since how energy is produced cheaper can be from state action, free market or simply by burning all the dollars Bernanke is printing.
Amazing to see the results of Kyoto, CO2-enrichment must have stopped according to the first graph. Surely, there cant be anything wrong with the models, can it?
logiclogiclogic … The theory of three theories.
I liked your post.
However, you miss the obvious theory: “we don’t know what caused it”. This is actually what “natural variation” means. It doesn’t mean we know it was the sun, it means “we don’t know”. That is a very different concept. But it is a theory that is useful because we can measure the size of that natural variation and we can to some extent predict how it will behave in the future from what it did in the past. Also, it is scientific because it is testable. Even if we don’t know what is causing “natural variation”, we can test to see whether the signal is consistent with this unknown variation or whether it is not (unlike manmade global warming which no test seems to disprove)
Under this “theory” (I think it’s more a tool), natural variation of around 0.1°C/decade is not uncommon. being 1/f^1.5 type noise, for short runs it’s near enough a random walk, so 3 decades of 0.1°C warming occurs about once a century. We had one 1910-1940 and we had the same scale 1970-2000. As such there is nothing at all unusual about these. We really needed to see at least 5 decades of continuous upward trend to even start suspecting it was not natural variation. However, since CO2 levels only started being measured in 1958 and it cooled in the 1960s, (when it should have warmed) and as it hasn’t warmed in the 2000s. and 1/3 of the 2010s We have had 2 1/3 decades of no warming compared to 3 decades of warming.
Some statistician could tell us how improbable that is. (1x cooling, 3x warming 1.3x pause), but I don’t need to work out the exact odds to know that’s far from exceptional.
Roger Knights says:
“I like the idea that the Pranksters on Olympus decided to send Sandy and a few extreme weather events in order to get the alarmists to go out on a limb again. I.e., I like the idea that they’ve been set up for a fall. That’s how the world works, according to Greek drama. It’s banana peels all the way down.”
You are a lot closer to the answer than you imagine. The old gods lived in an indeterministic world where they “just did”. If they felt bad, they took it out on humans, if they felt good, they likewise did good to humans. It was also a multi-faceted “god”, with many different characters.
In contrast, when Christianity came along, it introduced a deterministic god. God did good, (s)he therefore followed a series of rules and regulations so Christianity introduced this concept of a determinism.
One could argue that this was the essential change that led to modern science – the idea that things happen for a reason and not “the will of god”. In contrast, the old Norse and Greek gods fit much better with the vagaries of the weather.
So, when did Christianity begin? Roman warm period … a period when the climate no longer needed explaining by the old religion of chaotic gods.
When did the Norse gods get extinguished in North Europe? Medieval warm period! Again, not a time you needed the chaotic gods to explain the climate.
When did they burn the witches? Little ice-age! Was this a pagan revival?
However, the ultimate concept of Christianity is that “we are responsible for our sins … that our sins will receive punishment”. Give a culture like ours the concept that CO2 is a sin … and it is almost inescapable (cultural) logic that our sins of CO2 emission must lead to global warming hell. Likewise, the (punishment) of Sandy must be caused by our own sins. That is the cultural logic of a Christian society.
In contrast, a pagan society would look at Sandy … mutter “it’s just the gods doing what gods do” … and go back to our wooden huts to drink ale.
“Any reasonably intelligent person can check on line daily or monthly to see what the incoming empirical data actually is and draw ones (sic) own conclusions.” One would like to believe this to be true. My observation is that at least the current and perhaps the previous generation have been so poorly educated in the sciences, observation, and logic that 80%+ are incapable of drawing correct conclusions from the data and analyses; and of the other 20%, half are too lazy to do so. So, we end up being driven by politicians (of all stripes) with their more-government talking points and by popular pseudo-science as found in the execrable “The Day after Tomorrow.”
Good post, so many thanks.
The model used for the castigation of CO2, the two plate model, is good for two plates but not the reality that is earth. There is a good web site that explains a more realistic model which also negates the GHE as not workable or physically possible.
Try. http//www.climateofsophistry.com which is run by Joseph E. Postma an astronomer based in Canada.
ECO-GEEK and this article mentioned storing up food for lean years. Our previous PM and Chancellor, Gordon (Man of the manse [Church for our USA cousins]) had many good years in the UK economy – he spent spent spent like a demented alcoholic in an off-licence. He didn’t save, hence the UK’s economy is in s@@t state. Likewise, our food stocks are poor. Hence, the Arab spring – which started in Tunisia because of increased food prices (which hit the poor disproportionately harder) Lack of food is, of course, exascerbated by the need for bio-fuels – to combat Global Warming!!!!
If this article is accurate, we couldn’t have planned the demise of the human race better….. Or is this the Green Plan to reduce the numbers of humans….?
Sorry for the rant
OssQss says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Now my next question is do we have data as to sample rates over time with respect to global sites used for such Global Temp assessments ?
I seem to recall a time when we had many thousands more than we use now. A trend if you will?
______________________________
Yes the number of ‘official stations’ dropped drastically as is shown in this graph from the Judith Curry Blog.
Digging in the Clay blog did an interesting analysis on the effects of the The ‘Station drop out’ problem It was actually a series of posts such as Temperature stations : how many have data adjusted? and Adjustment Effects on Temperature Trends: Part 1 and they keep going.
Cheifio (E.M.Smith) did
GIStemp GHCN Selection Bias Measured 0.6 C
GIStemp “fixes” UHI using Airports as rural
More Airports Hotter Than ‘nearby’ Stations
And much more
WUWT did
GISS Swiss Cheese
On the “march of the thermometers”
And the response from the ‘Team’ on Station Drop out? There is no difference. (ROTFLMAO)
However despite that reassurance it seems the Russians weren’t too happy with how 75% of their station data was dropped. From WUWT (Do not miss the climategate e-mail where Michael Mann rejected two of the relevant papers submited to peer-reviewed journals that point out the problem with the Russian data )
Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations
There is a lot more than the sampling I just listed but the conclusion I came to is the data set is essentially useless and has been tampered with over and over as this set of graphs show to make sure there is a warming trend to feed to the MSM.
Massimo PORZIO says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:19 pm
So what?
No, no, no!
Can’t believe that, here in Italy this night the news just told me that in 2060 there will be no difference between winters and summers!
Dr. Page is surely wrong, TV media can’t lie on that.
(It’s sarcastic of course, this morning we get a nice +3°C nearby Milan)
Ah but did they forget to mention it will be an ice age!
Politisite says:
November 19, 2012 at 4:53 pm
If you want the weather to change, hang around for like 30 – 70 years
I have but it hasn’t changed yet!
****
Bill Illis says:
November 19, 2012 at 7:51 pm
It looks like the Sun is slowing down (but the TSI numbers are just slightly below that expected and, technically, our Sun is a very, very stable Star). Its surface temperature only varies between 5,779.5K and 5,780.5K. I don’t see the Sun having the type of impact needed to produce a significant cooling trend.
****
Lucky to have such a star, eh? (It’s not a coincidence)
I agree, not enough change, unless some undefined positive feedback is invoked (such as attempted w/CO2). I see many possibilities mentioned, but nothing straightforward or data-supportable, despite the efforts. OTOH, regional insolation changes from orbital mechanics causing climate change is well supported over thousands of yr timescales.
Bob Tisdale says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:46 pm
The PDO is inversely related to the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific over decadal timescales so there cannot be cause and effect based on the PDO.
Agreed. My study found the AMO was a bigger factor than the Pacific. However, this may be because excess heat from the Pacific gets pumped round Africa and up into the Arctic via the north Atlantic.
Norman Page’s projections are similar to those of:
1) Nicola Scafetta (see graphs of forecasts vs current temperature at the bottom,
Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. (Science and Public Policy Institute).
and of
2) Don Easterbrook:
D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Relationship of multidecadal global temperatures to multidecadal oceanic oscillations: in Easterbrook, D.J., ed., Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p. 161-184
3) Syun-Ichi Akasofu
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age , Natural Science, Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010) doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149 http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/
OssQss says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:19 pm
….With respect to the meridional jets in your other post,,,,,,, was the Russian Heat Wave, that some claimed were the worst for 1,000 years in that area, some of the same symptom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it was caused by a Blocking High. From NOAA
For the layperson:
If the jets are meridional in flow then you can expect weather extremes as the winds alternately suck polar and tropical air into the same region, it is just that simple.
This PDF Indicates a link to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO graph.) So Climate scientists are well aware that the NH will be seeing more extreme weather hence the change from CAGW to “Dirty Weather”
If you have followed what has been happening to the Jet Stream over the USA for the last couple of decades, this switch from zonal to meridional over the last couple of years is very apparent. (My business demands very accurate weather forecasts so I watch the jets closely.)
This was posted at Bob Tisdale’s blog. Can anyone name the author/source and what it represents exactly?
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t231/Occam_bucket/ModelvsObs.jpg
ln reply to Jim
ln recent years to jet stream has been making more wave movement towards the north and the south. Here in the UK the summers since 2007 have been rather dull and wet because of the southward push of the jet. The Polar jet is the zone between the warm air and the cold.lts along this zone where much of the cloud and rain form. So if this zone extends over a lager area then its very likely that there will be a increase in cloud cover
Sorry it should of been “larger” not “lager” 🙂
Hoser says:
Sorry… I can’t resist… Just don’t be a culo.
OK not a phrase used in UK, I had to google “culo”
now I have
Does my Bum look big on WUWT? : >)
taxed says:
November 20, 2012 at 6:27 am
Sorry it should of been “larger” not “lager” 🙂
Lager area describes northern Europe quite well actually.
By the way “should of been” should have been ‘should have been’.
Is this what we are in for? http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/cold-wave-roundup-record-temperature.html
The key idea behind my blogpost (see original at climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com ) was to encourage people engaged in the climate wars to avoid argument by reference to consensus or authority or peoples motives or funding sources or political affiliations It says :
“Fortunately, however , the basic data is now easily available so that any reasonably intelligent person can check on line daily or monthly to see what the incoming empirical data actually is and draw ones own conclusions. ”
It seems to me the “solar activity” ( which besides solar magnetic field strength, also includes changes in TSI ,EUV radiation, CME frequencies and proton storms which produce Forbush effects ) translates into regional climate and weather via the great ocean and atmospheric current systems. Certain configurations of these systems are more common on a cooling world than a warming world but they are not simply chaotic ie we can make regional predictions based on past configurations . It is these regional predictions over time which suggest useful local policy reactions within the framework of an overall warming or cooling scenario. The whole thing is like a Russian Egg with circles of relevance from a global to local scale.
eco-geek says:
November 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm
The horrific extent of the crimes of the warmists/alarmists are likely to become apparent within a decade. The deceit based diversion of political will to carbon dioxide emission reduction from preparations for the coming major fall in global temperature will cost many lives, possibly hundreds of millions or more, should a Maunder minimum be about to descend upon us.
It will soon become clear that grain production in the Northern hemisphere is about to collapse as the growing zones move southward hundreds of kilometres. It will be clear that the recent “good years” surpluses should have been preserved and stored for the decades of low food production which lie on our immediate horizon. Instead the cupboard is bare and we may only have wind generators to keep us warm. Its just a shame they don’t burn – the wind generators, that is.
Stay cool….
The problem is that the Malthusians and Greens want people to die they consider humanity is a disease of Gaia. So the fact that a child dies every 5 seconds at current levels of famine means that things are going the way they want. Food riots would play right into the ideals of the Fabian progressives who want to see total anarchy and a break down of current society to allow the ascendance of their Agenda 21 envisioned ‘Global Governance’. Strangely, the Fabian Progressives always consider that they should be the ones taking charge, and the Greens and Malthusians feel that other less equal humans should die rather than them or their families. But hypocrisy seems to come naturally to these ‘people’.
I have been pointed to this discussion by someone who got surprised by Leif Svalgaard’s claims on the drifts in Oulu NM data. I am the PI of the Oulu NM and am quite surprised that this issue, including direct cliams of my misqualification, are discussed here without contacting me first!
Oulu NM is regularly checked for the stabiity of electronics and counters and is regarded by experts as one of the most stable station of the world network. No aging is observed. Moroever, as Leif claims, Oulu is counting MORE cosmic ray than Thule, but this cannot be due to aging, unless this is aging of Thule. Aging can lead only to decreasing count rate!
Comparing Oulu to mid- and low-latitude stations is incorrect as the modulation during the cycle 23-24 is known to be more energy dependent than before. Moreover, Oulu data is totally consistent with most of the high-latitude stations (Apatity, McMurdo, Kerguelen, Terre-Adelia etc. – see http://www.nmdb.eu/nest/search.php ), except only two – Thule and even greater difference with the South Pole, the latter both showing a decreasing trend, absent in other stations. Moreover, McMurdo being counting even more than Oulu during the last years.
Thus, I consider Leif’s comments ungrounded and offensive as publicly discussed behind my back. I advice everyone to ask experts first if you think some data are wrong, not just claiming the data wrong because they don’t support someone’s idea.
Please don’t reply to me here, I am not reading this forum. If you have any questions, write to me directly (contact info is at http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/ ).
Sincerely yours,
Ilya Usoskin
I am looking at a global monthly temperature temperature series, (I’m using the one from BEST) and trying to find the change in trend in the recent years. Although I see a change in slope, it does not seem radical to me, and the scatter does not appear as though there is any difference. I may be seeing a step-change down with a resumed slope. Is there a paper or reference available that looks at the data and performs statistical analyses to establish that the trend did or did not change in a statistically significant way?
In my circle there were ’13-’14’s; ’14-’15’s; and I/me at ’15-’16 — I see from article I am no longer singular and which serves as a type of confirmation. Time will tell and 2015-2016 will be its own confirmation. rkh
There are notable researches that conclude the Maunder Minimum began significantly later than the start of the Little Ice Age.
My thought is that though the LIA was not caused by the MM, the MM might possibly have contributed somewhat to a cooling that was already well developed from other causes.
That does not provide support for any argument saying if we are going into a MM like solar event then we are going into a LIA. But although it does not preclude the possibility that we are starting a LIA-like event, it leaves me with just a shrug as to putting importance on the idea of being at the start of a new LIA.
John
Ron Manley says
There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2
Henry says
You are not joking? Clearly, temps. have been driven up by increasing energy coming in:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
but this trend has reversed since 1995
Increasing temps. going up from 1950 have driven up CO2:
remember there are giga tons of HCO3- dissolved in the oceans:
heat+ HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-
(when you boil a kettle, what smoke comes out first?)
The summer temperature graph looks sinusoidal to me, in which case there are some more years of warming left even though the long term trend line may be downward. Though I am an AGW skeptic, warm is better than cold for all things other than AGW skepticism and skiing.
_Jim says: @ November 19, 2012 at 8:59 pm
______________________________
The work of Jaworowski, Segalstad, and Beck among others. Reading how Mauna Loa data is manipulated. The crazy assumption that CO2 is ‘well mixed’ when there are continuous sinks, sources all changing and major day night fluctuations and numerous records that showing that CO2 is NOT constant/well mixed.
Why the heck would you take it as given that the CO2 record is pristine after we have seen how frecked-up the global temperature record is and how the temperature records has been continually gamed? After all the CO2 record is as important as the temperature record in perpetuating the scam. BOTH records must be shown to rise together. Heck look at the effort to explain away the 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature found in the ice core records. The paper was evasculated here on WUWT not too long ago.
Callendar’s cherry picking should have been the first really big clue.
graph
Closup graph
Here is the Ice Hockey Stick graph as shown in the link I used the FIRST TIME.
Day By Day says:
November 19, 2012 at 10:04 pm
I totally agree with you that a warmist of the religious type – not the original ones that knew what they were doing – but the 40 year olds and younger that have had the mantra played to them so often that in their minds it is totally real – they are going to go through all sorts of logical dissonance.
As they watch the Mississippi glacier calving ice into the frozen wastes of the Gulf of Mexico, they will say “when this lot melts its going to get really really warm!”.
“GM seeds adapted to drought and cold should be developed.”
Hopefully ones that are actually safe and can pass Dr Pusztai’s tests and not end up in the fraud category “http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud”.
Besides who needs GMO foods when traditional selective breeding has them beat already? Check out the haskap plants (and cherry trees, etc) that the U of Sask has developed. Good to climate zone 2! Yes 2 not just 3.
http://www.fruit.usask.ca/haskap.html
David Cage says:
November 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm
I believe this is as wrong as the global warming. Looking at the very long term trend not as linear but as cyclic we are on the slowly rising part of a sine wave…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Dave, Leif’s Solar Insulation chart based on the very slow Milankovitch cycles show we are near the bottom of a long trend DOWN. graph
Here is another graph from Boston University and the National Council for Science and the Environment, showing Precession, Obliquity, and Eccentricity and the calculated solar insulation. Again the amount of solar energy is head down.
Other links:
Description: link
Lay persons description of Gerald Roe’s paper: In defense of Milankovitch (with link to the paper itself) link
GRAPHS (Note the present can be to the right or left depending on the graph)
graph
graph
graph
graph
graph
Rick Bradford says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:09 am
Let’s assume Dr. Page is correct.
Let’s further assume that the Green/Left is successful in forcing through widespread ‘anti-carbon’ legislation — mainly making First World electricity prices many times higher and stifling Third World development.
The death toll from their actions would then dwarf anything that those other Comrades, Stalin and Mao, ever achieved. A Great Leap Forward, indeed!
And what will their excuse be? “We meant well.”
Excuse?
They don’t need an excuse – it is what they want.
Mankind is a disease of Gaia if you are a Malthusian or Green
Complete break down of society leading to Global Governance is what the Fabian Progressives want.
They will be overjoyed if “The death toll from their actions would then dwarf anything that those other Comrades, Stalin and Mao, ever achieved.” precisely because they would actually see that as “A Great Leap Forward”
Their one fear is that the starving multitudes may recognize what is being done before they are too weak to do anything about it.
Scarface says:
November 20, 2012 at 12:11 am
eco-geek says: (November 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm)
“It will be clear that the recent “good years” surpluses should have been preserved and stored for the decades of low food production which lie on our immediate horizon.”
The greens will one day be trialed for that, since they promoted to make biofuel of food.
________________________________________
We can only hope.
JimG says
the summer temperature graph looks sinusoidal to me,
Henry says
just look at the right graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
after that toasting of Dr Leif. Svalgaard by Prof. Ilya Usoskin I was surprised to be the first to visit his site to at least check credentials.
Appeals to authority have no value, however the most dangerous appeal to authority is belief in one’s own infallibility.
Perhaps the strongest appeal to self-doubt was political and concerned the life of only one man. Our current crisis, hot or colder, and what could be the immediate effects leads me to say to Leif, Ilya, Michael, Phil, Christopher et al:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
IanW says
As they watch the Mississippi glacier calving ice into the frozen wastes of the Gulf of Mexico, they will say “when this lot melts its going to get really really warm!”.
As I was saying;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar?
count back 2012-88= 1924.
By 1945 all that ice lost was back.
it will happen again. Mark my words. In two decades from now, all the arctic ice losses reported will be back.
And from the BBC “Greenhouse gases hit record high”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20410942
But still Schmidt and Hansen claim that the Hansen/IPCC temperature models have succeded, even though they admit that Scenario A is not coming (at this point).
Cognitie dissonance did in the believers of Jim Jones. I hope when the warmists come to their existential crisis, they will realise that voting Republican is all the change that is necessary.
Ilya Usoskin says:
November 20, 2012 at 8:40 am
I have been pointed to this discussion by someone who got surprised by Leif Svalgaard’s claims on the drifts in Oulu NM data. I am the PI of the Oulu NM and am quite surprised that this issue, including direct cliams of my misqualification, are discussed here without contacting me first!
Oulu NM is regularly checked for the stabiity of electronics and counters and is regarded by experts as one of the most stable station of the world network. No aging is observed. Moroever, as Leif claims, Oulu is counting MORE cosmic ray than Thule, but this cannot be due to aging, unless this is aging of Thule. Aging can lead only to decreasing count rate!
Comparing Oulu to mid- and low-latitude stations is incorrect as the modulation during the cycle 23-24 is known to be more energy dependent than before. Moreover, Oulu data is totally consistent with most of the high-latitude stations (Apatity, McMurdo, Kerguelen, Terre-Adelia etc. – see http://www.nmdb.eu/nest/search.php ), except only two – Thule and even greater difference with the South Pole, the latter both showing a decreasing trend, absent in other stations. Moreover, McMurdo being counting even more than Oulu during the last years.
Thus, I consider Leif’s comments ungrounded and offensive as publicly discussed behind my back. I advice everyone to ask experts first if you think some data are wrong, not just claiming the data wrong because they don’t support someone’s idea.
Please don’t reply to me here, I am not reading this forum. If you have any questions, write to me directly (contact info is at http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/ ).
Sincerely yours,
Ilya Usoskin
————————————————————————————————————————–
I’ll think Leif should clean his face and ask apology. Leif who is the one that makes cherrypiking? Seems that Ilya is bit angry. 🙂
There is already global cooling. The long term slight warming, and even the recent flat trend is the product of radical upwards adjustment.
D Böehm says: November 19, 2012 at 6:01 pm
The same mercury thermometers used for the past several centuries in compiling the Central England Temperature record show a steady warming trend, which has not accelerated in modern times.
_______________________________________
The same mercury thermometers used for the past several centuries in compiling the Central England Temperature record show a steady UHI** increase, which has not accelerated in modern times.
There, fixed that for you.
.
** UHI Urban Heat island effect. One of the three thermometers for the CET temperature series is based at Blackpool airport, the other is based just outside the engine run-up bays at Manchester International airport. Having stood on the ramp at Manch airport, I can tell you that those engines chuck out a lot of heat. And if you are only measuring a maximum, rather than an average for that day, one blast of hot exhaust will increase your ‘daily’ temperature reading.
.
.
Given the rate of accelerated rate of warmist madness, global cooling will be explained away by global warming models as increased volatility and nothing more. And with the steepness of the curve in warmist policy gambits this might be enough to wreck your personal finance and that of your country in smaller increments of time on the ridiculous curve. It’s a little bit like election calculus for minds and votes.
Doug Proctor says:
November 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
….I hope when the warmists come to their existential crisis, they will realise that voting Republican is all the change that is necessary.
________________________________
Make that a new independent party that does not have entrenched parasites and I would agree. The Repubs are as bad as the Democrats. Has either party bother to oust the banking cartel in the last 100 years? How many laws have been repealed? Bureaucracies shut down?
Olavi says:
November 20, 2012 at 11:57 am
I’ll think Leif should clean his face and ask apology. Leif who is the one that makes cherrypiking? Seems that Ilya is bit angry. 🙂
It is not a good idea to argue with angry people. There are only a handful of stations with very long records. The longest one is Climax. In this plot, I normalize several long-running stations to have the same mean as Climax [so they can be compared]: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png
Then I divide Oulu’s counts by the mean of all the other stations and plot them as the triangles. It is clear to me that there is an upward drift in the triangles and that Oulu therefore is not representative for the overall cosmic ray intensity [whatever the reason for the drift, be it instrumental or not] measured at the surface of the Earth [which is presumably what some people think has effect on climate]. BTW, one does not need permission to analyze data that is publically available.
It is possible that Oulu has seen more of the low-energy cosmic rays than other stations at mid-latitudes, but since the climate is supposed to be influenced by the high-energy cosmic rays, that possibility seems irrelevant.
It is instructive to use the site that Ilya linked to: http://www.nmdb.eu/nest/search.php to see for yourself what the variations at several stations have been.
I’ve been pondering the “No warming for 16 years” news for a few weeks now, and it causes me to revise my thinking on at least one subject. Since the late 90s I’ve wondered whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 was explainable simply in terms of sea surface temperatures. I’d always held out the idea that a warmer ocean would absorb less CO2 and that warming the ocean by even a fraction of a degree say, through solar activity, could explain a lot.
Since we are looking at sixteen years of no increase in SST, I have to reject this idea, or at least regard it with doubt.
I’ve always doubted that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was enough to explain any change in earth’s temperature. No reason here to stop doubting that idea.
Anthony, As always interesting and informative whilst simultaneously prompting “peer review”. However may I suggest you always incorporate a link to the credentials of the writer? Whilst you may know Dr. Page like a brother my Google efforts revealed little. With so much bullsh*t being published … it always helps if we newer and / or less well informed readers are more fully informed of the credentials.
The big question is how much and for how long.. The climate models say intervals of a decade can happen , but history shows these are more like 30-40 years I think the most probable blueprint for the next 20 -30 years for the globe is the past climate period from 1880-1910. The period had three low solar cycles , something like our current #24 which could be the first of three such low solar cycles in the immediate future as low cycles seem to cluster in threes.During that period the global SST anomaly dropped as did the global air temperatures when they bottomed around 1910 and the decade after. AMO went negative or cool in 1900 or about 17 years after the last solar maximum of solar cycle # 12.[1883] If the current pattern is similar , then AMO may go negative by 2000 plus about 15- 17 years or 2015 to 2017. The probability that AMO interval will be around 20 years is about 70%. It last changed in 1995 We could also see fewer climate changing strong El Ninos, perhaps only one per decade compared with 2 per decade during the warmer three decades of 1970 -2000. If these events do take place then global temperature anomalies could drop by about 0.4C and hover around 0.C at the trough period by 2030 . Regionally and inland areas could l see greater temperature drops.Winter temperature could drop by 5C in Northern inland areas. Winter temperatures have been flat or dropping in most areas of the Northern Hemisphere. Europe has seen no warming of winters for 20 years and dropping winter temperatures since 1998 and they have already seen some very severe winters during the last 4-5 years .Their winter cooling started after 2007. In Canada and US the winter temperatures have been flat or dropping if we discount the unusual winter of 2011/2012. I have found that past cycles never repeat exactly as the previous one but some elements are similar and give at least a clue of what may happen. One of these is that global temperatures never just rise but fluctuate and the cycle is clearly heading down . for the last two
Silver Ralph says:
November 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm
…….
Not much evidence that the UHI warmed the CE from 1690 to 1750
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
TRM says:
November 20, 2012 at 10:20 am
“GM seeds adapted to drought and cold should be developed.”
Hopefully ones that are actually safe and can pass Dr Pusztai’s tests and not end up in the fraud category “http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud”.
Genetically modified crops have been in use around the world since the mid-1990’s, the acres of deployment growing significantly every year. There is no evidence, repeat no, that genetically modified crops have caused any problems for human consumption, and for the environments in which they are used. Pusztai’s “research” has been roundly and soundly shown to be bogus.
Show me some bulletproof science that genetically modified crops are a problem. There is none yet to date after 16 years of use. WUWT is devoted to the furtherance of sound science – let’s not mess up the record with talking points on GM crops taken from the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.
TRM says:
November 20, 2012 at 10:20 am
“GM seeds adapted to drought and cold should be developed.”
Hopefully ones that are actually safe and can pass Dr Pusztai’s tests and not end up in the fraud category “http://www.responsibletechnology.org/fraud”.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but my first reply disappeared into the ether….No “awaiting moderation statement”
There is absolutely no evidence that the use of GM crops, growing worldwide every year since the mid-1990’s, causes any problems for human consumption and for the environment in which they are used. The “research” of Pusztai has been shown to be bogus, and has been widely discredited.
WUWT is devoted to sound science – let’s keep it that way, and leave the scare tactic talking points to the likes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.
OT, but the BOM Nino 3.4 SST index is currently 0.12 degrees and falling, for more than a week:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
The Nino 3 index has just fallen below zero:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
But the WUWT ENSO dial shows the value just increased from 0.5 to 0.7 degrees. Do we have a closet warmist controlling this dial?
Emigrate to Australia, unless China invades it first.
The Netherlands did better than most European countries during the LIA, their agricultural practices were ahead of every country, it took the French over a hundred years to catch up. We may cope as we have even better technology to aid us this time around, though there are some factors that will cause problems, a much larger proportion of people to land viable land area, and a just in time method of food production and delivery, these factors place us at heightened risk of setbacks in cases of late frosts, poor summers etc.
Thus ensuring that the atmosphere over the oceans picks up plenty of moisture which is then deposited over the cold continental interiors as snow, deepening the misery and cold.
Gail Combs says:
November 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Doug Proctor says:
November 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
….I hope when the warmists come to their existential crisis, they will realise that voting Republican is all the change that is necessary.
________________________________
Make that a new independent party that does not have entrenched parasites and I would agree. The Repubs are as bad as the Democrats. Has either party bother to oust the banking cartel in the last 100 years? How many laws have been repealed? Bureaucracies shut down?
Why should the governing class bust up a cartel they created deliberately? /rhetorical and this applies to OPEC too, in a manner of speaking.
The deewB dweeB C(o2 ) brainwashed zeros.
Laws of Nature ,Lazy Teenager,Monckton of Oz.
As I said above, the main point of the post was to point the way to the key data – you don’t have to believe my interpretation – I don’t think belief has much to do with science- dig down on the links and draw your own conclusions. Lazy Teenager I have no idea what.you are referring to re Morano – I’ve never written anything for him.
Monckton of Oz – I retired from the international oil exploration business about 10 years ago and find Climate Change an amusing topic of great scientific interest.I have no financial or professional standing incentives in the outcome of the Climate Wars one way or the other . I do have a PhD in geology but personally put little store on qualifications or appeals to authority – all that really counts is the data and some ability in critical judgement and logical argument eg it’s colder at night and cooler in the shade and winter is colder than summer. Common sense and the obvious will carry one quite a long way and should not be set aside except for very good reasons.I have about 50 years of experience in analysing and correlating time series of multiple variables which, at base ,is pretty much what exploration geologists do.It is often more an art than a science – you can believe me on that.
I don’t believe in global cooling. I hate the very idea of it. The shortened growing seasons and longer winters requiring the use of more energy to keep warm, thus higher expense, putting upwards pressure on energy prices, driving the cost of living higher. The ripple effects throughout humanity would be harmful, of course. Therefore, I choose to not believe in it, preferring the advantages we’ve enjoyed from the slight warming since the LIA to stick around at least a little while longer. Though, I must admit, it would be nice for the Children to know what snow is.
DR
I think a similar analysis was made by Lucia at The Blackboard on 4 Oct 2012. See
Arima11 Test: Reject AR4 Multi-Model Mean since 1980, 1995, 2001,2001,2003.
Leif, here is your original graph with multiple NM data. Again 3 of 5 look awfully similar to Oulu:
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/SRU_Graph.jpg.html
Here is Oulu:
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/oulu.gif.html
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems like the stations in the graph you supplied are in Africa, not Oulu? Please correct if wrong (we are all human, some more than others, I certainly have my moments).
If others have a similar curve to Oulu, it would imply that Oulu is not an outlier, but maybe inconvenient (if one is Oulu, as you stated previously, why are two of the others similar)?
The appropriate (scientific) thing to do would be to plot them all (all across the globe), normalize them, make a nominal/mean, and calculate STDEV of each series, to judge the “outlieryness” of the individual series.
Re: the “lsvalgaard says:
November 20, 2012 at 2:37 am
ed says:
November 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Would love to see a plot of all cosmic ray monitoring stations and thier locations to see which locations are similar to oulu and which are not. Geomagnetic variability by location?
leifs response: “You sound somewhat desperate. There are not many stations with unbroken data going back many decades. The issue is not geomagnetic variability, but simply stability of the instruments over time.”
”
When the answer is “you sound somewhat desperate”, no offense (ok a little) you might want to see a psychiatrist on that one…I sense issues…
Please fix all those commas. Thank you!
ed says:
November 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm
The appropriate (scientific) thing to do would be to plot them all (all across the globe), normalize them, make a nominal/mean, and calculate STDEV of each series, to judge the “outlieryness” of the individual series.
To repeat myself:
There are only a handful of stations with very long records. The longest one is Climax. In this plot, I normalize several long-running stations to have the same mean as Climax [so they can be compared]: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations-Oulu.png
Then I divide Oulu’s counts by the mean of all the other stations and plot them as the triangles. It is clear to me that there is an upward drift in the triangles and that Oulu therefore is not representative for the overall cosmic ray intensity [whatever the reason for the drift, be it instrumental or not] measured at the surface of the Earth [which is presumably what some people think has effect on climate].
ed says:
November 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm
The appropriate (scientific) thing to do…
One of the contributing reasons for the upwards drift of Oulu is that [as with so many time series in the climate debate] the values have been ‘adjusted’ over time, so that, for example, the value for the year 2008 is now [in 2012] higher than the value for 2008 published in 2009 and so on. Such upwards adjustments will naturally produce an ever rising series.
Here are a few more plots with a recent rather high NM count:
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/SNAE.gif.html
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/modplotth.gif.html
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/mosc.gif.html
A comparison between Climax and Oulu…pretty good agreement (too bad the Climax data didn’t go up to present, but over quite a few cycles it tracks well).
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/crflux1.png.html
Great resource if anyone is interested for more stations than you’d ever want to pull up: http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/common/links.htm
Leif, are you of the belief that when sunspot count drops to zero, that TSI and/or UV hits a floor? Or do you think it more likely that TSI/UV tracks the neutron monitor data (inversely)?
Reprise: Global Cooling Prediction from 2002
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1079770
A full Ice Age is not required to hurt the developed world. More moderate global cooling could suffice.
Modern Western society is complex, so moderate global cooling, together with a crippling of our food and energy systems through green-energy nonsense, could have devastating effects. (Add a collapse of major global currencies due to excessive money-printing by central banks in the UK, Europe, the USA and Japan.)
We predicted global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article written in 2002. I think there is a reasonable probability that this cooling will be severe enough to affect the grain harvest. Urgent study of this question is appropriate, but the climate science community is so contaminated by warmist hysteria that it is apparently incapable of objective analysis.
Is this just more alarmist nonsense? Perhaps, but we have a strong predictive track record, unlike the warmists who have none.
__________________
Here are some background notes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/ar5-climate-forecasts-what-to-believe/#comment-1064602
[excerpts]
Prediction Number 9
In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result.
This possibility (probability) concerns me.
8 Successful Predictions from 2002 (these all happened in those European countries that fully embraced global warming mania):
See article at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
[end of excerpts]
______
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1090817
Allan MacRae says: September 26, 2012 at 3:32 am
So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?
Leif Svalgaard says: September 26, 2012 at 5:09 am
Essentially, yes. As the Sun does not vary enough.
Dr Norman Page says: September 26, 2012 at 7:32 am
The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.
Allan says:
OK…… Glad we cleared that up.
Could possibly resolve this question through a scintillating game of rock, paper, scissors?
🙂
Leif said:
“Such upwards adjustments will naturally produce an ever rising series.”
This is simply a wrong bold statement. Oulu NM data has never been adjusted for anything but known changes of efficiency due to the change of the surroundings – see description at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/readme.html. It might happen that Leif discusses uncorrected Oulu data, but I cannot judge on that unless I know where and how exactly he obtained the data.
If one compares Oulu data with other polar NMs, it is totally consistent – see plots at
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/tmp/Oulu_vs_/
where plots have been simply copied from NMDB NEST tool => just to avoid any further ungrounded claims of purposeful “adjustments”. Interestingly enough,while Apaptity and Kerguelen with the geomegnetic rigidity cutoffs Rc close to that of Oulu Rc=0.8 GV show count variability nearly identical to Oulu, polar stations with the lower cutoff of 0.3 GV (Fort Smith, Inuvik and Nain) show even stronger “upward drift” than Oulu. If someone makes a plot similar to that presented by Leif (ratio of Oulu to other mid-latitude stations), but for another polar station, the result would be the same. This is typical not for Oulu but for most polar stations. Is it an indication of the polar-station-mafia’s secret and simultaneous adjustment of data? Thule and South Pole show a decreasing trend instead.
I was just looking at the ignorance and lack of basic Science on every other comment in this blog … then, suddenly realised why we are in the shit.
ed says:
November 20, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Here are a few more plots with a recent rather high NM count:
http://s852.beta.photobucket.com/user/etregembo/media/modplotth.gif.html
You barrel on without consideration. I showed you Thule and Oulu:
http://www.leif.org/research/Oulu-and-Thule.png the red curve is Oulu
Leif, are you of the belief that when sunspot count drops to zero, that TSI and/or UV hits a floor? Or do you think it more likely that TSI/UV tracks the neutron monitor data (inversely)?
During the Maunder [and the earlier Spoerer] Minimum cosmic rays were still modulated, so the sun’s magnetic cycle was still operating. Since TSI/UV vary because of varying solar magnetic field, TSI/UV would vary accordingly.The usual assumption is that zero sunspot number [e.g. during a Grand Minimum] means no magnetic cycle. This assumption may be wrong if Livingston & Penn are correct, see the Discussion in http://www.leif.org/research/TIEMS-Oslo-2012-Svalgaard.pdf
“Observations by Livingston & Penn since 1998 until the present show that the average magnetic field in sunspots has steadily decreased by 25% [Livingston et al., 2012], regardless of the fact that we are now again at the maximum of a solar cycle, so there has not been a solar-cycle-related reversal of the trend. Since their magnetic fields cool sunspots, a decreasing field means that sunspots are getting warmer and that their contrast with the surrounding photosphere is getting smaller, making the spots harder to see. There is a minimum field strength in visible spots of about 1500 Gauss [0.15 T] and as that 1500 G threshold is approached, magnetic fields appear at the solar surface which do not seem to form dark sunspots or pores. Owens et al. [2012] suggest that the photospheric flux emergence in such cases may take place in flux tubes with field too weak, or of too small a diameter, to form sunspots, citing Spruit [1977]. The observed distribution of number of spots vs. field strength has been shifting steadily towards that limit. If, and that is a big IF, this trend continues, the number of visible spots in the next cycle [and perhaps beyond] may fall to values not seen since the Maunder Minimum, but without dramatic changes in the emerging magnetic flux. Without the dark spots, Total Solar Irradiance might even be a bit higher. It is not clear what this will mean for the impact of solar activity on the Earth’s environment, if any, but it portends exciting times for solar physicists.”
Ilya Usoskin says:
November 21, 2012 at 3:10 am
This is simply a wrong bold statement. Oulu NM data has never been adjusted for anything but known changes of efficiency due to the change of the surroundings – see description at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/readme.html. It might happen that Leif discusses uncorrected Oulu data, but I cannot judge on that unless I know where and how exactly he obtained the data.
I got the ‘official’ data from Oulu’s website back in 2008 and again now in 2012. There is a smooth, progressive upwards change in the data over the period 1964-2012 of 2%.
The issue is not whether Oulu is right or wrong, but to what extent Oulu is representative of the modulation of the high-energy [10 GeV and up] cosmic rays that is thought be some to be active in climate change.
@logiclogiclogic says:
>>There is a third possibility which I have elected generally which is that these other factors are not accounted for in the models by the agw theory but that co2 has some effect. Given this possibly the 2 things compensate for each other so I see a third possibility that temps basically don’t go anywhere for 10 or 20 years.
I wouldn’t want to bet on that one, remembering that there has always been an uptick in CO2 levels found in ice core and ocean core samples before the onset of each major glaciation. The increase in CO2 seems to have always been part of the trend. I’m putting my money on much colder and dryer conditions in the future. And, it will all begin to happen before I check out.
In time the greenhouse effect will be rejected entirely as a climate driver.
Reposted from Tallbloke’s site:
Tracking graphs back and forth, I’ve just finished tracking locations back and forth. I think the latitude issue is moot. The locations are not mid-latitude versus artic latitudes as implied.
Leif has primarily used NOAA locations. Outside of normalization after station moves/construction NOAA does not mention ‘adjustments’.
Ilya used University of Delaware stations. Apparently all of these stations are normalized and ‘adjusted’ for efficiency.
Taken from: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/readme.html
What really puzzles me is why positive ‘efficiency‘ adjustments are used to normalize counts to pre 1985 periods. Am I missing something?
Anyway, Ilya is using University Of Delaware, Bartol Research Institute stations with efficiency adjustments and Leif is using NOAA apparently unadjusted for efficiency stations. So Oolu should have higher counts given their efficiency adjustments. Efficiency?
NOAA station info: http://ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/cosmic.html
The point I was making with the neutron data was the secular change in solar activity in 2004/5.The Oulu data is pretty well confirmed and matched by the Ap index see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/the-sun-still-slumping/
For further confirmation see Abdussamatov http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
For the sun climate connection 1980 – 2008 see
Wang http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
Ilya Usoskin says:
November 21, 2012 at 3:10 am
This is simply a wrong bold statement.
I got the ‘official’ data from Oulu’s website back in 2008 and again now in 2012. [There is a smooth, progressive upwards change in the data over the period 1964-2012 of 2%.]
This was from eyeballing the graphs. A better determination using the actual counts shows a more jumpy change of 1.2%, with the main change in late 1985. So the efficiency changes were applied retroactively to 1985. Nothing wrong with that if the changes are justified.
atheok says:
November 21, 2012 at 7:35 am
Anyway, Ilya is using University Of Delaware, Bartol Research Institute stations with efficiency adjustments and Leif is using NOAA apparently unadjusted for efficiency stations.
No, I was using Oulu’s data from their website in 2008. The efficiency factors were apparently not applied then. But the issue is somewhat moot. The cosmic rays that are supposed to be active are the high-energy ones at mid- and low-latitudes.
Leif wrote: “I got the ‘official’ data from Oulu’s website back in 2008 and again now in 2012”
Now it’s cristal clear that what was ascribed to my ill-intentioned non-scientific “data adjustment” was in fact caused by Leif’s carelessness. the Oulu web-site provided, in 2008, data which were NOT corrected for the efficiency (changes of the local surrounding), and a user was expected to do it manually, as was explicitly stated at the web-page. In 2010, following numerous requests of users, careful enough to read the information on the web-page, we implemented this correction into the database. Thus, the data downloaded in 2012 are already corrected for the efficiency, as again explicitly stated at the web-site.
See a description of the correction at
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/readme.html
in the section “Efficiency Correction factor”.
Thus, what Leif compared was corrected-vs-uncorrected values (I_normalized vs I_measured), exactly as I suspected. Their ratio simply gives the correction factor as in Table at the
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/readme.html.
Leif, WHY DIDN’T YOU SIMPLY ASK ME ABOUT THIS, instead of blaming me???? The issue would be resolved within 5 minutes…
Ilya
HenryP says:
November 20, 2012 at 11:05 am
JimG says
the summer temperature graph looks sinusoidal to me,
“Henry says
just look at the right graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/”
Looked at it. Nothing there to indicate that it is the “right” graph. Whether right or wrong, I used the one the author is using. It continues to look sinusoidal to me.
Ilya Usoskin says:
November 21, 2012 at 8:37 am
Leif, WHY DIDN’T YOU SIMPLY ASK ME ABOUT THIS, instead of blaming me???? The issue would be resolved within 5 minutes…
I’m not blaming anybody, just using the data as it was presented. I used your plots from the website. In any event, Oulu and some polar stations are not representative of the high-energy cosmic rays that are supposed to be active in climate change. With or without ‘efficiency’ Oulu has an upward drift compared to the mid- and low-latitude stations [and even some high polar stations – Thule and South Pole] where the climate effects are supposed to happen. That was my point. All this anger is misplaced.
In the X-Y plot, the curve labelled “Predicted” should be labelled “Projected.” Though it makes projections, the IPCC does not make predictions. The IPCC’s projections are unsuitable for the task of falsifying the IPCC’s climate models.
Dr Page
“Because of the Urban Heat Island effect”
” all that really counts is the data and some ability in critical judgement and logical argument eg it’s colder at night and cooler in the shade and winter is colder than summer. Common sense and the obvious will carry one quite a long way and should not be set aside except for very good reasons.”
I spend a lot of time out after sunset with a telescope, and have become very interested in the daily drop in temp after the sunsets. This is a great time of year in the midwest to get a feel for wide swings in daily temps. The other night (clear skys, high of mid/low 50’s, minimal wind) I started to note the temps at sunset. I recorded a little over a 10 degree drop from sunset to 10:30 pm. Extrapolate the same rate out to sunrise for a total 26.5F drop in temps. The actual minimum temp I measured was 29.5F on the west side of my house about 40 minutes past sunrise, where it should have dropped to ~20F. The grass was covered with frost (so 2 state changes of water vapor), but exposed land (dirt, bricks, asphalt) no frost, and if you measure the ground temp, it’s still in the mid/low 30’s. At 11:45 the night before where I measured 33.8F, the weather station a few miles away in the bottom of a valley reported 32F, while the major airport ~30 miles away reported 41F (26F/38F/29.5 Valley/Airport/Backyard).
It seems obvious that there is no loss of nightly cooling ability, and land use (UHI) makes a huge difference.
I expanded my effort to the complete NCDC summary of days data which shows a global daily rise/fall of ~18F, which has no clear trend from the 1930-2011 (where I stopped working on it), nor is there hardly any difference between rise and fall on an annual basis, yet if you examine say north of 23 lat for each day, you can easily see the change due to the length of day changing. And variability vastly overwhelms any warming trend.
IMO, chasing some fraction of a degree change in a low quality data set is playing into their game, we need to show that what they’re doing is a distraction and is irrelevant.
It also means the models are worthless, we’re looking the wrong way, and I’m afraid you’re right it’s going to get real cold, and worse yet it’s going to take us by surprise.
Abstract
A reconstruction of oceanographic variability of the past 5800 years on the southeast Greenland shelf was obtained by analysing a combined marine sediment record based on two cores from the same site. Cores Fox04G/05R were retrieved from a side basin to a cross-shelf trough connecting the 900 m deep Sermilik Fjord with the Irminger Sea in the northwestern North Atlantic. The record was analysed in terms of grain size distribution, XRF and benthic and planktonic foraminiferal content and the chronology was obtained on the basis of 210Pb and 14C dating. The late-Holocene paleoceanographic variations in the record were characterised by a marked influence from the Irminger Current (IC) at the onset of the record at 5800 cal. yr BP and the regional Holocene Climatic Optimum between 5200 and 4200 cal. yr BP. After 3600 cal. yr BP Neoglacial cooling with increased influence of polar waters from the East Greenland Current (EGC) diminished the influence from the IC. Between 1500 and 700 cal. yr BP, the environment was highly dominated by cold low-salinity water masses characterised by sea ice forming locally and/or transported with an intensified EGC. At 700 cal. yr BP, concordant with the onset of the ‘Little Ice Age’, inflow of IC water masses intensified, notably during short-lived warming episodes of the North Atlantic Current most likely related to a contracted subpolar gyre. At the same time, the EGC polar water transport also intensified leading to a stratified water column on the shelf and this may have favoured entrainment of warm subsurface IC waters. Alternatively, the relatively warm rim of the eastern subpolar gyre may have promoted intense submarine melting of extended Southeast Greenland outlet glaciers at this time, producing enhanced meltwater outflow which favoured estuarine circulation processes maintaining the inflow of IC water masses.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/10/0959683612460789.abstract
Cooling this year? Probably…
Abstract
A reconstruction of oceanographic variability of the past 5800 years on the southeast Greenland shelf was obtained by analysing a combined marine sediment record based on two cores from the same site. Cores Fox04G/05R were retrieved from a side basin to a cross-shelf trough connecting the 900 m deep Sermilik Fjord with the Irminger Sea in the northwestern North Atlantic. The record was analysed in terms of grain size distribution, XRF and benthic and planktonic foraminiferal content and the chronology was obtained on the basis of 210Pb and 14C dating. The late-Holocene paleoceanographic variations in the record were characterised by a marked influence from the Irminger Current (IC) at the onset of the record at 5800 cal. yr BP and the regional Holocene Climatic Optimum between 5200 and 4200 cal. yr BP. After 3600 cal. yr BP Neoglacial cooling with increased influence of polar waters from the East Greenland Current (EGC) diminished the influence from the IC. Between 1500 and 700 cal. yr BP, the environment was highly dominated by cold low-salinity water masses characterised by sea ice forming locally and/or transported with an intensified EGC. At 700 cal. yr BP, concordant with the onset of the ‘Little Ice Age’, inflow of IC water masses intensified, notably during short-lived warming episodes of the North Atlantic Current most likely related to a contracted subpolar gyre. At the same time, the EGC polar water transport also intensified leading to a stratified water column on the shelf and this may have favoured entrainment of warm subsurface IC waters. Alternatively, the relatively warm rim of the eastern subpolar gyre may have promoted intense submarine melting of extended Southeast Greenland outlet glaciers at this time, producing enhanced meltwater outflow which favoured estuarine circulation processes maintaining the inflow of IC water masses.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/10/0959683612460789.abstract
Part of the attenuation of cosmic rays by sea level, by the time of reaching surface stations like Oulu, comes from the mass shielding of Earth’s atmosphere: ten tons per square meter.
For example, between 15 km altitude and sea level, radiation dosage to humans from cosmic rays (in mSv) drops vastly, by two orders of magnitude. In that extreme case, while the Earth’s magnetic field causes a difference of several times in the exposure rate at 15 km altitude at the equator (around 20 mSv/yr) versus at the poles (around 50 – 120 mSv/yr), a huge difference of orders of magnitude occurs from mass shielding for that altitude versus near sea level, which is why the world’s population averages only 0.4 mSv/yr of cosmic ray exposure.
(While more commonly expressed in a rate per hour rather than per year, the greater flux of cosmic rays at higher altitude is particularly well known from influencing the dosage received by airline pilots).
While the 15 km altitude illustration is a more extreme example than directly relevant, a lesser but still significant effect occurs for more moderate altitudes versus sea level. For instance, the city of Denver, although at only a mere 1.6 km above sea level (on a plateau), receives about double as many mSv/yr from cosmic rays as typical for a city closer to sea level.
Even a fairly low altitude cloud a mere 3 km above sea level (as opposed to high altitude clouds like those at 7 km), about double the height of Denver, still has significantly less mass shielding above it than the surface does. For a given chance of reaching even such as 3 km altitude, less cosmic ray energy is required than to reach the surface at the same rate at that latitude. In fact, a hypothetical cosmic ray detector in a balloon at cloud altitude could be at significantly lower latitude than the Oulu surface station and yet be reached by as many or more cosmic rays of a given energy range. As illustrated in my comments (and their images linked) in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/06/solar-cycle-24-continues-weakly-perhaps-weakest-of-the-space-age/ , Oulu, Thule, Sanae, and a number of other detectors show cosmic ray flux near the surface at their locations was different for the last solar minimum than for the solar minimums before within the Space Age, which would also be the case at cloud altitudes; that is what is plausible when the solar magnetic field was not identical between those minimums.
[snip – I’m going to give you a chance to reword this and resubmit it for your own good – Anthony]
I notice you pick 2003 as your “start” year to find a negative trend in SST.
Do you think a “start” year should be an outlier year?
Was there a specific reason you chose 2003?
Was it because it is a year that allows you to make draw a particular conclusion?
Can you imagine what would be the response if real scientists engaged in this kind of activity?
According to predictions made by David Archibald, this year was to have been a year of cooling, cooler than any year since 1954.
Will we get to the point at some stage where we treat these “cooling” predictions with the grain of salt they deserve?
There is quite simply no sign of any “cooling” in the observations. For there to be “cooling” there would have to be a “step down” in temperatures at least as significant as the “step up”: that occurred in the late ’90’s.
There is no sign of any such “step down” occurring and no reason I know of why it should be expected.
Dr. Craig Thomas:
Without exception that is known to me, David Archibald’s “predictions” are “projections.” Predictions are falsifiable. Projections are not.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
It’s observational, empirically-based science like this that ruins perfectly good fantasies such as Anthropogenic Global Warming.