From Radio Voice of Russia:
Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years”
Scientists at Russia’s famous Pulkovo Observatory are convinced that the world is in for a period of global cooling.
Graph by David Archibald
Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.
Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.
“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.
Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.
“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.
As Russia steps up efforts to upgrade its icebreaker fleet, new-generation icebreakers are set to arrive in the years to come. No climate changes will thus be able to impede an increase in shipping traffic via the Northern Sea Route.
Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/
New York Times May 21 1975….A major cooling of the planet is now considered inevitable because it is well established that the Northern Hemisphere`s climate has been cooler since about 1950.”
Science News March 1 1975….”Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000 year ice age.”
This idea totally contradicts the historical record in which the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods each peaked on the order of one 1,400 years apart. To judge from that, we should have another two hundred plus years of warmer weather before a major cooling. Present conditions are not even as cold as the cold period in the middle of the twentieth century. It is more likely that the Dansgaard–Oeschger or Bond events govern this.
Judging the future by the past is more scientific than Twainian extrapolations. Weather is cyclical and the interactions between cycles appear chaotic.
Since when does a 200 year cycle have a 200 year cold period? Does a year have a 12 month winter? It is nonsense to conflate half cycles with whole cycles.
The sun’s output has only reached at most a hundred year low placing us at the coldest point of a two hundred year cycle. It can only get warmer.
Winter is coming.
Laurence Clark Crossen says:
”The sun’s output has only reached at most a hundred year low placing us at the coldest point of a two hundred year cycle. It can only get warmer.”
That’s like saying we’re at winter solstice it can only get warmer.
There’s a multitude of cycles, the summation of which is what matters and thus the interval may vary in realized effects; in other words the interval between a mere two warm periods does not necessarily predict the interval for this one.
Obviously, the science behind this idea is debateable. Meaning, one should be skeptical. We should keep asking questions. That is the scientific process, after all. Now, let’s compare and contrast with Warmism, shall we? Warmist ideology includes within it the concept of “consensus”. That means that essentially, “the debate is over”, and that we must now move on to policy. Oh, sure, they make a big show about an “uncertainty” here and there, which requires “more study” (more $$$$, in other words). They are saying essentially that we need to spend $trillions to “save the planet”, essentially dooming millions to energy poverty, and a higher death rate, particularly among poor children. The consequences for their policy changes are already being felt, and if they have their way, will get much, much worse.
But, what policy changes would be suggested by a possibly-severe cooling? Oh, for starters, a sane energy policy relying on the cheapest, most abundant, and dependable sources such as coal, oil and gas, and nuclear belongs in the mix as well. Strong, vibrant economies would certainly be able to withstand the rigors of a colder climate. No downside there. Plus, the good news is, if and when it happens, the cooling will be gradual. We’ll adjust. We’ve done it before.
@John West
The context was the larger 1,400 year cycle is carrying us to warmer times.
“….sooner or later we will know which way the climate goes, even if we’re not around to witness it…..”
Yogi Berra, where are you now that we really need you?
Russians are getting their grants from a different source; unsurprisingly, their predictions are different from Western dogmas. Which side is correct? Neither one, I think, but this is a well-deserved black-eye for self-affected Dr. Svalgaard. His views on the Big Bang theory await the same inglorious fate.
Forget oil gas coal nuclear (and of course wind and solar which are not really energy sources). Here is the game changer: Betting that Japan can extract and commercially exploit methane hydrate
I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments. As if one pronouncement from a Russian observatory is the final word. And you call yourself skeptics!
Yeah, Russian scientists totally bought into polywater decades ago. I agree that the sun’s activity is having an impact, but casting bones & reading entrails isn’t my strong suit. Let’s wait for 50 or 100 years and see what the climate is like then. Wake me up when it’s over.
Tom says:
“I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments.”
The confirmation bias is by the Russian scientists, who are confirming the views held by WUWT readers.☺
I am skeptical that the Sun is the only factor. There is land use, desertification, increased CO2, and a myriad of other factors. I do not believe that it is ‘just’ the Sun Stupid. It is most likely a combination of factors. Now while our main radiation source is the sun to date we have not seen enough variance to understand its impact over time. Too much has been built from proxy rather than direct data ergo we have too little information from which to draw conclusions. We can attempt to make a ‘guess’ but based on everything I am not too worried YET of an ice age setting in.
If you don’t like the weather, come back in 3 days. It will be different.
If you don’t like the climate, come back in 30 years. It will be different.
(How ’bout them predictions?)
There is a bit of subtle bidding-up of the gas futures there by the Russian academia. Last thing Russians want are short warm winters in Western Europe, this winter they’ve made absolute fortune from gas sales. Germans need to hurry-up with their coal power stations.
Dennis says:
April 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Forget oil gas coal nuclear (and of course wind and solar which are not really energy sources). Here is the game changer: Betting that Japan can extract and commercially exploit methane hydrate.
Not bloody likely. It’s a crap shoot even for Japan, where the cost of nat gas is almost 5x what it is here. It’s a fools’ bet.
this is probably not really easy to validate – based on projections, etc. HOWEVER, we are all aware (or should be!) that past ice ages began fairly abruptly, and within the realms of our available palaeo climate data and error bars, we are due one pretty well anytime soonish. I personally think that SSN are not really easy to use for projection/prediction basis, mostly because, like all our data, the older it is the less reliable it is likely to be….
I would put the centers of the past warm periods at Minoan(3300 BP), Roman(2100 BP), and Medieval(900 BP). Note the interval (1200 years). Adding the interval to the Medieval warm period gives -300 BP or 2300 AD. Note that 1200 years is half of the 2400 year solar cycle (see below). This late ’90′s “Modern Maximum” was just a temperature spike. We have a cooling to go through before we again get to a genuine warm era, but that will be something to write home about, a 370 year-long stretch of maximal solar activity..
According to Charvatova(2000)
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf
“The next such segment will occur from AD 2240 to 2610. [snip] The 10-year cycle lengths should prevail. A very long term maximum of solar activity comparable to that which was last observed during classical antiquity should occur in the mentioned interval.”
Solar activity has been in a decline since the 60’s. What is the explanation for the rise in global temperature since then?
See Steven Goddard’s Real Science on doctored data recently…
Tom in global cooling ain’t gonna get to me Florida says:
April 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm
We’re skeptical of stuff we can’t see and measure–like any reason CO2 would be causing the warming that’s been heading up since the end of the Little Ice Age. And not that skeptical of stuff we can see and measure–like a decline in solar activity. Of course, call me stupid if you think the sun isn’t the Earth’s heat engine.
I’ll take the risk.
Well, they’re are guessing just as much as Hansen and friends. There was similar talk and books published about “the coming Ice Age” in the early ’70s – e.g. Climate and the Affairs of Men. One thing though, if they are right, 250 years of significantly cooler weather is a lot more serious than a one degree increase in mean temperature. You could be looking at massive disruption in Russian, Mongolian, Chinese and Canadian agriculture, just for starters.
I woul recommed to read some abstracts of papers by Boris Komitov who has long reord on solar climate connections including predictions: http://www.astro.bas.bg/~komitov/abstract.htm
I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments. As if one pronouncement from a Russian observatory is the final word. And you call yourself skeptics!
Well, I only see a couple of “I told you so” – and a lot more “yes, but” in these comments, so I think maybe it is your own bias that is being confirmed, Tom.
Many people here have discussed the very low cycle 24 numbers, including the good Dr Svalgaard (who’s point is not that there is no minimum, but that the maximum was exaggerated). There have been many who have put a stake in the ground about what this means for temperatures as well, but they have had to argue for this (and still do, regularly). This is a very argumentative topic here on WUWT (and long may it remain so) but confirmation bias? No, that doesn’t fly at all.
I have confirmed his old claim of a 200 year climate frequency to Dr. Abdussamatov on the 13th of this month, because I do know the structure of this function. But the point is that this ~200 year frequency is not a real single cycle, it is the 5th harmonic of a complex fundamental tide cycle of two objects of ~900 years. There is also a 3rd harmonic about 300 years. This can be shown with FFT analysis of J.A. Abreu et al. 2011 Steinhilber 10Be and 14C (frequency scaled!)
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_comp.gif
Comparing the FFT analysis of one ore two solar tide functions of from slowly running objects, it is evident that the global climate is controlled by solar tide functions.
Comparing the solar tide functions of 4 couples with a new publish graph of the global temperature for the last millennium, it becomes clear, that the coincidence of FFT peaks (after time scaling e few percent) must exhibit a 200 year frequency, Dr. Abdussamatov spoke about and now Dr. Yuri Nagovitsyn, working on the same floor.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_bild_vd_1.jpg
But the a significant decrease in temperature, like the LIA, will come in 2200 AD and after 2500 AD. The gap in temperature in ~2050 is only a phase of minor cooling.
The geocentric climate dogmatics still have ignored to check the cycles with colourful names in astromomic synodic heliocentric functions acting on the Sun.
That there is a dynamic physical process in the Sun can be shown by the neutrino flux from the sun which is correlated to the global temperature of the Earth.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/homestake_etc.gif
V,
Well, Professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Jersey seems to say that it is Globall warming that creates Global Cooling. Closed for any comments…..
Google translates it to this;
http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Fvaer%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10109585&act=url