Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!
Pierre Gosselin writes:
Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?
Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.
Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!
Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl
The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”
So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.
The JP writes that “many will be startled” by the news that a little ice age is a real possibility. Indeed, western citizens have been conditioned to think that nothing except warming is possible. Few have prepared for any other possibility.
===============================================================
I find this part quite relevant, as I have also asked this obvious question.
Gosselin writes: Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:
How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”
The “missing heat went to the deep ocean” meme being pushed by the Skeptical Science Kidz is pretty much about as relevant to the reality of climate change as their Nazi role playing.
Read the entire essay here, well worth your time:
Rather that should be 71%
The gravitational pull of other planets contribute to a slowly developing physical tilt (wobble) which causes the Earth’s axil position to change (back and forth, thus the term “wobble”), shifting the area exposed to direct shortwave infrared radiation which causes climate shifts due to that tilt. The Sun again, remains relatively constant. Within this weather-pattern-variation-affecting slow oscillation from tilt to tilt, the global temperature demonstrates trends up, down, and stable. The discussion here focuses on the potential drives of these relatively short wiggles. I believe we can all agree on that.
There are three suppositions: Solar influence from some kind of varying output agent (caused by whatever), complex oceanic/atmospheric overturning oscillations, or anthropogenic CO2 feedback mechanisms (primarily increased ability of a runaway more humid atmosphere preventing heat from escaping and then warming the oceans up because of more retained long-wave radiation getting absorbed into these oceans).
Regarding shorter term temperature changes (as in less than 10,000 years), the single most powerful and variable (you need both) driver of climate shifts would be intrinsic to Earth, it being the number 1 candidate in terms of the necessary power and variability needed to drive and sustain weather pattern variation shifts. Until this source is understood and ruled out, it makes no sense at all to focus on teeny tiny drivers that at best can only be shown to “mathematically” affect a given temperature. Neither solar or CO2 enthusiasts bother themselves with the elephant in the room, believing instead that their pet gnat has filled the room with warm steaming piles of poop.
henry@pamela
..but it does seem that the planets Saturn and Uranus are causing the switch?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1387601
Pamela Gray says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm
I feel that quasi-periodic D-O Cycles in glacial phases & Bond Cycles in the short interglacials are real & probably have similar or the same causes. Heinrich Events seem related as well. It appears to me that Earth’s climate during the Pleistocene glaciations has three stable modes, into & out of which it switches rapidly: interglacial, glacial & glacial maximum. These last on the order of tens of thousands of years, rather than the hundreds to thousands for their component cycles.
IMO in all cases water modulates the orbital mechanical & solar effects (which could be great from small variations). Land, oceans & air are all different in glacial as opposed to interglacial phases. Ice, liquid water, clouds & water vapor in differing combinations look like major drivers, whether as GHG, shade, circulating medium or albedo reflective surface.
But who knows, it some mysterious as yet unidentified forcing may drive the planet in & out of its phases. Instead of inventing GIGO models each scarier & more filled with special pleading than the last implicating CO2 & the magic gas alone, how about our spending more on actual climatic research, gathering & analyzing real data, instead of massaging questionable readings?
Richard says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:58 am
I read somewhere that the gravitational effect is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances.
———————–
But what do the models show?
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:56 am
Leif, you appeared to be making inaccurate statements which is odd. Your comment concerning the number of pores decreasing rather than increasing for solar cycle 24 is factually incorrect.
First, as I point out you are not clear what you think a ‘pore’ is. My graph http://www.leif.org/research/Freq-small-groups.png shows that the frequency of groups type A, B, and A+B in cycle 24 is well below that of earlier cycles, and thus not anomalous.
W. LIVINGSTON AND M. PENN said Quote: “the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae”.
And when did they say that, at the time of minimum where one usually doesn’t find large spots in any cycle. You appear to ignore that I work very closely with L&P.
Pores are very common for solar cycle 24 which is what we are discussing.
My graph http://www.leif.org/research shows that the frequency of [numbered, to boot] groups type A, B, and A+B in cycle 24 [which you may be calling pores] is well below that of earlier cycles.
The numbered sunspot group lifetime is decreasing for solar cycle 24 and is significantly less than the number sunspot lifetime of solar cycle 23 and 24
Contradicting yourself and where is the peer reviewed paper supporting your assertion?
BTW, here you can see a pore http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20120624.JPG marked ‘P’ near the center of the disk and not counted.
As many are aware due to the climate war recent planetary temperature measures have been revised upward to hide the plateau of no warming. Similarly the sunspot count is getting some help to hide the decline. As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.
The following is an interesting recent sunspot counting scheme change.
http://www.solen.info/solar/presentations/ssn_workshop_tucson2013.pd
Sunspots – image creation
Using magnetic overlays greatly aids spot analysis both at the overview and detailed level (William: Yes it does and it helps to hide the fact that the number sunspot group is declining.)
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
Hiding the sunspot count decline of course does not affect, does not change what is physically is happening to the sun. Propagandists need to have a plan. The problem with hiding the decline of the numbered sun spot groups on the sun is there will be a sudden unexplained drop off in numbered sunspot groups when the scheme falls apart as there will be no sunspot groups to count.
As the maximum magnetic field strength of a sunspot or pore is 1500 Gauss and the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is dropping linearly a point is reached when the decline in magnetic field strength results in less and less sunspots on the surface of the sun.
We are now at the point in time where the magnetic field strength has declined sufficiently such that 50% of the new sunspots will not form which will result in a faster than normal drop off in numbered sunspots groups if the numbering scheme is not changed, rigged.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Penn-Liv-Sval-ApJ.pdf
During a roughly 11 year period, the number of sunspots seen on the solar disk shows a cyclic change. The current sunspot cycle (Cycle 24) has been strangely slow to develop, but even more strange is that infrared measurements of the central dark sunspot umbral regions have shown a decrease in the maximum magnetic field strength (with an associated temperature increase) since 1998 (Livingston 2002; Penn & Livingston 2006, 2011).
These data also show that for even the smallest dark feature observed (i.e., a pore or a sunspot without any penumbra) the magnetic field strength is always greater than about 1500 G.
Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.
This has probably been covered on WUWT but didn’t Levitus, 2012 profoundly adjust the ocean heat content data? It used to plateau after 2000 but now NOAA is showing it greatly increasing with little pause.
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm
As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.
Complete nonsense. Sunspots and groups are counted [deliberately] with small telescopes, visually with no help from anything else.
it helps to hide the fact that the number sunspot group is declining.
Completely irrelevant as sunspots and groups are counted visually with small telescopes. What Jan does on his private website is not used by anybody but himself. And we have been stressing the fact that the group count is decreasing [and that there are fewer and fewer spots per group]. Don’t try to tell anybody that this is something you alone noticed. This is the subject of serious [and public] research.
Hiding the sunspot count decline
Nobody is hiding anything. You may benefit from the complete list of the sunspot workshop papers here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home everything is out in the open and the ~50 leading scientists participating is your guarantee for an unbiased, professional, and high-standard treatment of this issue.
if the numbering scheme is not changed, rigged.
There is no rigging of anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.
even more strange is that infrared measurements of the central dark sunspot umbral regions have shown a decrease in the maximum magnetic field strength
That is why we are asserting that the sun probably will enter a Maunder-type minimum where the sunspot number no longer is a useful measure of solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf
But, generally, it is good to see that you are beginning to look at recent papers by respected scientists [like yours truly] , instead of keep trotting out the old hats.
henry says:
“Using CET only is a trap, because of the weather…. ”
CET is the best temperature series in World for investigating the solar signal, because of the weather, which changes rapidly with solar forced changes of the AO/NAO. The response is always direct, unlike with the oceans.
On your ideas:
In isolation, Saturn-Uranus syzygies are a cold signal, they cannot be bipolar and know when to warm or to cool.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:34 pm
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm
As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.
Complete nonsense. Sunspots and groups are counted [deliberately] with small telescopes, visually with no help from anything else.
William:
Yes, that is what is stated.
If that is correct (no effort to hide the decline), then there should be the start of a significant drop in numbered sunspots.
Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.
Correct?
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm
If that is correct (no effort to hide the decline), then there should be the start of a significant drop in numbered sunspots.
There is indeed such a drop [but the ‘numbered’ part is incorrect – spots are not numbered, groups are]. Each group now contains 30% fewer spots than in the past centuries.
The sunspot number [and also F10.7 – a part of the flux comes from sunspots] are lower now than TSI and the number of CMEs would indicate, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SSN-F107-CMEs.png One interpretation of this is that the magnetic field [causing TSI and CMEs] is there but does not assemble into visible spots [that increase F10.7]. For what it is worth, I also believe that the lower SSN than expected is the reason for the SSN being a bit lower than my prediction [SSN pred = 72, while the number of groups = 6 is as predicted as well as the solar flux [=120]].
Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.
Down to one half may be too large a decrease, but there will be [I belive] an increasing discrepancy between the expected SSN and what we will see. I believe this happened during the Maunder Minimum [and all really Grand Minima – the Dalton does not qualify] and is the reason people back then hardly saw any spots while at the same time the magnetic field was strong enough to modulate the cosmic rays as strongly as today and to produce the ‘red flash’ [the chromosphere] visible during solar eclipses then. As Jack Eddy and Peter Foukal point out “the red flash implies that a significant level of solar magnetism must have existed even when very few spots were observed, during the latter [and deepest] part of the Maunder Minimum”. You can see my reasons for the above speculation here http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf There was no ‘interruption’ of the ‘solar magnetic cycle’, just a change [unknown why – but it is good to have some mysteries to ponder] in the process that assembles the magnetic field into visible spots. Now, all this may be too much for you to swallow, but is something you might want to think about.
My ideas about this are, of course, speculation, but with some foundation, and will [and has already] be met with resistance from both extremes of the spectrum. Luckily, it appears [to use your favorite word] that these thing may come to pass [or not as the case may be] in a not too distant future [hopefully in one’s lifetime] so are eminently testable.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:10 pm
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm
My ideas about this are, of course, speculation, but with some foundation, and will [and has already] be met with resistance from both extremes of the spectrum. Luckily, it appears [to use your favorite word] that these thing may come to pass [or not as the case may be] in a not too distant future [hopefully in one’s lifetime] so are eminently testable.
William:
I agree. I find speculation and significant unresolved theoretical issues to be frustrating.
There are sets upon sets of interesting issues and unresolved anomalies (effect or no effect on planetary temperature, depth of the minimum, speed of change, theoretical implications concerning the solar magnetic cycle and so on.) that may be resolved by the solar cycle 24 change.
It will be interesting to watch this issue progress as more data is made available. The solar cycle 24 change data has the potential to lead to a significant scientific breakthrough.
Ulric Lyons says
CET is the best temperature series in World for investigating the solar signal, because of the weather, which changes rapidly with solar forced changes of the AO/NAO. The response is always direct, unlike with the oceans.
On your ideas:
In isolation, Saturn-Uranus syzygies are a cold signal, they cannot be bipolar and know when to warm or to cool.
henry says
After studying 47 weather stations (excluding CET),
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I found that for some odd reason, CET runs opposite the wave for its latitude, meaning that during a warming period (44 years) it gets less clouds and rain, so average temp. goes down. (GH effect)
Apart from that, there is a lag, on the 88 wave.
Apart from that you must / cannot not rely on one weather station to give you a global picture.
IMHO, the Saturn-Uranus duo clearly shows the correlation of the 88 wave to be true,
apparently causing the switch, with 4 quadrants of each 22 years, on average
The 88 year Gleissberg weather cycle confirmed by me is also nothing new:
It seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.
end quote
(the oft quoted 11 year solar cycle is only half of a full solar cycle)
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm
I find speculation and significant unresolved theoretical issues to be frustrating.
Speculation is the lifeblood of science. You speculate, form a hypothesis, then test it: classical Scientific Method. Speculation based on a firm foundation is exciting. Speculation based on how you wish it to be is, indeed, a frustrating and wasteful business.
HenryP says:
“I found that for some odd reason, CET runs opposite the wave for its latitude, meaning that during a warming period (44 years) it gets less clouds and rain, so average temp. goes down. (GH effect)”
When?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Tmean/England.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Rainfall/England.gif
@ulric
look at CET maxima and compare with my a-c curve, try a 22 year running average,
(as far back as you can go?)
btw
I found the correlation Saturn/Uranus 100%
it is the switch that causes (the core of?) the sun to change sign
I have updated my final report
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
although “final”?
I am continuously being amazed as to how nature has been put together.
HenryP says:
“look at CET maxima and compare with my a-c curve, try a 22 year running average,”
Warming from the late 1970’s, the same as globally: http://snag.gy/YyqXf.jpg (CET 1900 to 2007)
Ulric Lyons says:
August 11, 2013 at 5:00 am
“My latest research on sunspot cycle phase catastrophe’s every 110.7yrs on average, shows two cycles being affected at this node, with SC 25 maximum occurring in late 2027 to early 2028,”
I have re-evaluated this, and now see good reason for SC25 sunspot maximum to be close to March 2025 to January 2026.
@Scarface and others
“water is most dense at 4°C” That number applies to fresh water. Sea water is somewhat different. Googleing would suggest that sea water is the most dense at -2°C, at which point it would freeze (at sea level presure (notable, the only place where sea water normaly will reach temperatures like that is in the polar regions, where the salinaty is less, causing the polar sea water to freeze at about -1.7°C)) Apparantly sea water acts more like normal liquides, and less like water. Still, warm (less dense) water is not going to be going down to the 2000m depth, the warm water will be up on top. The “missing” heat can’t hide down there.