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/
Pamela-
The essential point is that if the sun varies, and the planet varies in it’s reflection of that input, little else matters. You can move the thermal energy around with any model you choose, but if the thermal input changes you get warmer or colder over time, no matter how you move it.
“The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it’s too late for our children and grandchildren,” said Tim Lueker, a Scripps oceanographer.
Sobering? Au Contraire, mon ami! I’m planning a spring ‘400ppm kegger’. That is, if it ever stops raining long enough for the lawn to stop ‘squishing’, here in the Great NorthWet…. My lawn mower throws a ‘bow wake’ off of the front wheels, as it gives the moss yet another crew cut!
Heck – After a few pints of heady brew (Thanks to CO2!), we may even try our hand at herding Pamela’s cats!
Yeee-Haaa!
MtK
G P Hanner says: April 30, 2013 at 7:55 am
@Steve Keohane says: Your link to maps of hummingbird migration are disappointing. […]
There’s a reason why that ruby-throat migration map doesn’t include Colorado: That’s not part of their range. There are two or three species of hummingbird that transit/nest in the Colorado mountain west, but the ruby-throat hummingbird is not one of the(m).
That’s funny, we have them throughout the summer, along with at least three other species. One, a copper color shows up in July and stays into August. That one is the only transient one I’ve noticed.
I know that there are time zones and all that, but aren’t they out of bed yet, in Palo Alto?
In reply to:
Sharpshooter says:
April 30, 2013 at 3:50 am
Quote: “Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger…the best place to start is with a carbon tax. A phased-in carbon tax of $20 to $25 a ton could raise around $1 trillion over 10 years, as we each pay a few more dimes and quarters for every gallon of gasoline…It’s the only way to revive the country and a moribund Republican Party.” NYSlimes columnist Thomas Friedman,
Howdy.
Your comment is off topic for this thread but important to be discussed in the context of ‘climate’ change policy. I feel therefore that I should response as the topic is germane to the climate change fiasco which is a key reason why the EU and the US economies are failing. (There is no free money to spend on green scams and there is an economic cost to spend money on green scams.)
P.S. Please do not response. Let’s discuss this issue in another more appropriate thread.
Best wishes,
William
Thomas Friedman is a blowhard who promotes half baked dot.com like schemes which if implemented will destroy our economy.
A US trillion dollar carbon tax will kill the remaining primary and brown industry (industry that requires power inputs) in the US and send those jobs over to Asia (i.e. US consumers still want and purchase the products that require energy to produce. The change is those products and goods will not be produced in the US.) The US has an intrinsic competitive advantage over Asia and the EU due to lower energy costs. The EPA and Obama administration are trying their very best to negate our low cost energy advantage.
The idiotic ‘climate’ change and ‘green’ scam fiascos have brought the EU to the edge of economic ruin. It is truly astonishing that they have managed to create a ‘climate’ crisis that does not exist and then have legislated policies that will kill all remaining primary industry and brown industry in Europe. In the excitement to jump on the bandwagon basic analysis was not done to work out the carbon impact or the economic impact of those policies. There is a net increase carbon dioxide emissions as the products and goods that were produced/manufactured in the EU countries are now produced/manufactured in Asia and the ‘green’ scams are so inefficient that the net carbon emission from each Kw of energy produced is almost unchanged. The resultant of the EU policy will and is therefore a doubling of energy prices in the EU which are already the highest in the Western world, a net significant in loss of jobs, and an increase in total world carbon dioxide emission.
Lose-lose-lose.
The EU and US crisis is the economy, not warming climate change. It is difficult to imagine what the response would be to cooling climate change. Let’s wait until there is unequivocal observation evidence of cooling to discuss.
The ‘green’ scams are certainly a significant reason why the EU economy is failing. The EU it appears is winning the race to transform their countries into third world countries.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22353726
Unemployment in the eurozone has surged to a fresh record high, while inflation has fallen to a three-year low, boosting expectations that the European Central Bank will cut interest rates.
Unemployment in the 17 countries using the euro hit 12.1% in March, up from February’s 12%, according to official figures from Eurostat.
In total, 19.2m people are now out of work in the region. Greece and Spain recorded the highest unemployment rates in the eurozone, at 27.2% and 26.7% respectively, while Austria, at 4.7%, and Germany, at 5.4%, had the lowest rates. Youth employment, defined as those under 25, hit 3.6 million in the eurozone. In Greece, 59.1% of under-25s were unemployed as of the end of January, while in Spain, 55.9% were unemployed.
Back to David Archibald:
Cycle 24 doesn’t look to be as high as your graph by a long way, and there is no pattern development to say Cycle 25 is a Maunder equivalent.
I’ve followed your posts, and I see the temp vs cycle length relationship for the New England states, which is greater than would be expected for the global temps. I still don’t see where the collapse of Cycle 25 comes from. Especially when you still consider Cycle 24 to end on such a high note.
Please advise of what I am seeing wrong here …..
Brad says:
April 30, 2013 at 11:32 am
Pamela-
The essential point is that if the sun varies, and the planet varies in it’s reflection of that input, little else matters. You can move the thermal energy around with any model you choose, but if the thermal input changes you get warmer or colder over time, no matter how you move it.
Brad, I don’t believe you are thinking correctly.
The top 2.5 meters of ocean holds as much energy as the entire atmosphere. So let’s assume something say a large ENSO like ocean effect takes half the heat energy from the atmosphere into the sea. As you say we can move the energy anyway we choose – now you have lost half the atmosphere heat content the fish aren’t unhappy but you will be.
Let’s assume another effect, the small drop in UV and short wave radiation – balanced by perhaps an increase in longer wave radiation, leads to the sea surface temperatures at the ITCZ dropping a little as short wave radiation is what warms the oceans and the longwave doesn’t penetrate. The reduction in the strength of the convection at the equator leads to the Hadley cells shrinking and the Ferrel cells and associated jet streams moving equatorward. The effect of the Coriolis force and the difference in wind speeds leads to Rossby waves in the jet stream – they become lioopy (as they are now and have been for around 5 years). The looping track results in more cloud in the sub-tropical to temperate latitudes and more short wave energy is reflected back out to space leading to even cooler sea surface temperatures leading to reduced convection …. This is where we are at the moment. It is not weather it has not taken much of a drop in TSI just a change in the energy distribution. And yet everything is getting cooler. Now let’s say that we hit a PDO negative and an AMO negative at the same time – as we are at the moment – these are long cycles in the ocean currents and associated atmospheric pressures. We get even colder. Should the Earth go through some planetary dust or galactic dust or more galactic cosmic rays (see some of Nir Shaviv’s papers) then we could have the unlucky confluence of several peaks and troughs at the same time.
I don’t think there is _one_ wiggle to watch. I think that there are several . And with chaotic systems an input of the right level at the right time may have a significant effect whereas at other times it would be minute.
So when several groups looking at different apparently unconnected metrics feel the climate could become cold – I would follow Harold Ambler’s advice and not sell my coat.
If we are entering a period of long term cooling, talk about use of the Northern sea routes seems to be frivolous. In our polar regions there is one factor that is known to stop ice breakers, thick ice.
Ian W said:
“The looping track results in more cloud in the sub-tropical to temperate latitudes and more short wave energy is reflected back out to space leading to even cooler sea surface temperatures leading to reduced convection”
Nice to see one of my suggestions sinking in.
Loopy jets equals more clouds and less energy into oceans. Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis not needed.
Ian W said:
2the small drop in UV and short wave radiation – balanced by perhaps an increase in longer wave radiation, leads to the sea surface temperatures at the ITCZ dropping a little as short wave radiation is what warms the oceans and the longwave doesn’t penetrate. The reduction in the strength of the convection at the equator leads to the Hadley cells shrinking and the Ferrel cells and associated jet streams moving equatorward2
Observations suggest that the initial solar effect is expansion or contraction of the polar vortices which cause expansion or contraction of the polar air masses at the surface causing in turn more loopy or zonal jets which cause cloudiness to increase or decrease and the change in energy into the oceans than affects the ITCZ and the Hadley and Ferrel cells.
The 97% who ok’d the Hockey Stick theory have a new solution that Michael Mann has had them review.
X/cerpt:
If you move the worlds time zones 4 hours counter clockwise global warming will end on time.
Published only now.
Doug Proctor says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Doug and others, the graph above is now a couple of years old. I will update it for the subsequent SIDC numbers. When I started out in this field in 2006, what kept us engrossed for years was the long tail on Solar Cycle 24. Do you remember the long wait for the first spotless days? And then there were plenty. Back then, I thought that Solar Cycle 24 would be the cold one and that Solar Cycle 25 was unknowable. Some others were saying that 25 would be the cold one. Seven years later, I think that 24 will be cold (and the lengthening of the northern winters points to that being on track) and that 25 will be absolutely frigid. That said, I don’t know if the Russians have got a physical model behind their prediction re 25. I don’t think so – they are arm-waving.
It is now two years since Altrock last publicly released his green corona emissions plot. That plot tells us that the tail of 24 is going to be very long – as long as a normal solar cycle. That is the one hard fact that we have. A very long 24 means an extremely cold 25. So now we are waiting around for 12 years for the 24/25 minimum. I think I will go back to cancer research for a while, starting with a human clinical trial on benign prostatic hyperplasia.
higley7 says:
April 29, 2013 at 8:26 am
No, Phineas is correct. The full cycle is ~60 years, ~30 to go up, and then ~30 to come back down.
It is not guaranteed that the 60 year cycle will continue, if there is an abrupt change in solar forcing, for example. But, that’s the way to bet, IMO. My money is on another 20-30 years of general cooling, followed by a new upswing.
Dr. Archibald
The SSN by all accounts it doesn’t appear to do much directly. In the N. Hemisphere there is a more intermediate stage to be understood for the temperature variability, before any of it can be partly or in totality attributed to the solar activity. Long records from the N. Atlantic for the moment, are by far better source of information for ‘guessing the future’ than the Abdussamatov’s unexplained musings about SSN.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FTE.htm
3×2 says (April 30, 2013 at 9:29 am): “The alarmists have 15u EM on their side. On that at least most of us can agree.”
============================================================
Yeah, “most of us”, the consensus fiction once again.
No, the do not have 15u EM on their side. “Trapped” radiation can nor affect the temperature of the source (the IPCC “greenhouse effect”), this is physically impossible.
David –
First,
thanks for all the work you did that make me and all sorts of others do our own investigations and come to our own conclusions. I believe that we are entering a cooler phase as per your correlations, but perhaps 0.4C globally is it. However, if the PDO etc was responsible for the earlier/post-65 cooling, then the oceanic phase cooling would be in addition to the solar effect. Then we could get a 0.8C cooling globally – which will translate into a 2C or so in the mid-continent wheat belt.
I’ve done a little bit of original research so I know the vast amount of work it requires and how easy it is to find holes/poke holes.
Second,
“benign prostatic hyperplasia” seems a contradiction in terms, although I know what it means. Instead of the word “benign”, we should have a Latin term that means “Less than a complete smack in the head”.
Cheers.
Steve Keohane: If you really think you’re seeing ruby-throat hummingbirds, send your report to this guy./a He’ll be amazed.
Concerning fusion energy production, yes, polywell sounds good, but he has been saying he is only a half-million away from a breakthrough for some years now. I just don’t see it happening. (ECAT comes to mind.) As to the engineering involved with D-T, no. It just ain’t happening. Ask Francis A. Garner, my mentor in the 90s. He thought my estimate of more than 100 years was pessimistic, but he agreed that 60 to 75 was realistic. The key is that we just do not have materials that can withstand 14-MeV neutrons, and we have no hope of making such, short of the slow, incremental improvements we’ve made over the last 25 years. Besides, we need lithium to make the tritium.
Better take a closer look; that one is shipping to select customers …
.
Pamela-
I like your comment about how the effects of the oceans, meandering jet streams, pressure systems, water vapor, Coriolis affect, and clouds influence weather. I very much believe these are huge drivers. What are your thoughts on the influence of the sun on one or more of these elements? I’m not talking about the heating of the sun, but do you think the sun could influence one or more of the element you describe in a manner we are not yet familiar with?
Jasper
It’s the sun, yes, but it’s also the soot. The obvious effects of soot on the Arctic (where most warming is occurring) have been given short shrift in favor of CO2 B.S. and hype.
The sunspot prediction graph, from the Manned Space Flight Center, NASA:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
I’ve been watching it for a couple of years now, and the peak for cycle 24 keeps getting redrawn lower and lower…
Any commenter here who bypasses powerful intrinsic factors makes the same mistake CO2 AGWers do. Why walk in that debunked path? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Why the desire to look past the much more capable intrinsic factors that affect both short and long term weather pattern variation? Do you worship the Sun like AGWers worship CO2? Do the math and go with the more powerful variable at play here. Leave the gnat’s ass items for later.
Dr Norman Page says:
“…
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024”
This mirrors my forecast for mid-uppers land temperatures very closely.
Pamela-
LOL! 99.97% of the incoming energy to the planet is from the sun. Ummm, thus your argument is it does not mater if the sun varies even a little? Laughable.
“The total rate at which the energy enters the Earth’s atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts. This flux consists of:
solar radiation (99.97%, or nearly 173 petawatts)
This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1,366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth’s disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 × 1014 square metres, averaged over the Earth’s surface, which is four times larger. (That is, the area of a disc with the Earth’s diameter, which is effectively the target for solar energy, is 1/4 the area of the entire surface of the Earth.) The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth’s surface is about 680 W m−2
This is the incident energy. The energy actually absorbed by the earth is lower by a factor of the co-albedo; this is discussed in the next section.
Note that the solar constant varies (by approximately 0.1% over a solar cycle); and is not known absolutely to within better than about one watt per square metre. Hence geothermal, tidal, and waste heat contributions are less uncertain than solar power.[citation needed]
geothermal energy (0.025%; or about 44[2] to 47[3] terawatts)
This is produced by stored heat and heat produced by radioactive decay leaking out of the Earth’s interior.
tidal energy (0.002%, or about 3 terawatts)
This is produced by the interaction of the Earth’s mass with the gravitational fields of other bodies such as the Moon and Sun.
waste heat from fossil fuel consumption (about 0.007%, or about 13 terawatts)[4] The total energy used by commercial energy sources from 1880 to 2000 (including fossil fuels and nuclear) is calculated to be 17.3×1021 joules.[5]
There are other minor sources of energy that are usually ignored in these calculations: accretion of interplanetary dust and solar wind, light from distant stars, the thermal radiation of space. Although these are now known to be negligibly small, this was not always obvious: Joseph Fourier initially thought radiation from deep space was significant when he discussed the Earth’s energy budget in a paper often cited as the first on the greenhouse effect.[6]”
How many petawatts to one degree Celsius?