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:
1.Salvatore Del Prete says:
2.
August 10, 2013 at 10:35 am
3.
I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.
4.
The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.
5.
If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.
6.
The biggest fault I have with many of the climatic outlooks is almost all of them fail to take into account possible thresholds that exist in our climatic systen(therefore none can address the abrupt climate changes of the past that have occurred on a regular basis) andmany of them are always trying to fit the climate into a neat regular rythmic cycle.
7.
It does not work that way due to the following:
8.
1. The beginning state of the climate has much to do with how the climate will change even if the same forcings are applied.
9.
2. The climatic system is non linear which means the same forcings can produce a completly different result.
10.
3. Even if one and two were not correct the location, the degree of magnitude of the forcings and the duration of time of the forcings and how many different forcings are phased into a cold regime or a warm regime at the same time would cause major differences in the evenual climatic outcome.
11.
That is why these percise climatic outlooks like Henry is trying to do are estimates.
12.
I can say with confidence that the temperature trends are going to be down at least until 2040 or so due to the very weak prolonged solar minimum and what past history has shown to be the climatic reaction to this type of an event.
13.
However I don’t know the degree of magnitude or duration of time, the prolonged solar minimum will be, how much of an impact the weakening geo magnetic field will have,don’t know exactly how much volcanic activity may or may not be taken place going forward or the location, cosmic ray increases and their effects on clouds, and UV light decline impacts on ozone, and how meridional the atmospheric circulation may become and how long it may be sustained, or how this this circulation pattern may, or may not effect the thernmohaline circulation.
14.
Let’s not forget a decline in solar visible light and how that will play upon ocean heat content going forward.
15.
Then if this were not bad enough you have thresholds which are out there, which might be reached or may not be reached.
16.
This is why( aside from co2 being a non climatic leader but rather a climatic result) the AGW model forecast are essentially uselss.
17.
Nevertheless, through past evidence and current studies on solar/climatic relationships I can confidently conclude that the temperature trend will be down due to the prolonged solar minimum which started in earnest in late 2005.
18.
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years) for minor temp decline are as follows:
19.
solar flux sub 90
20.
solar wind sub 350 km/sec
21.
ap index 5-8
22.
solar irradiance off .1 %
23.
UV light off up to 25%
24.
My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years,which started in year 2005) for major temperature declines and even possible thresholds to come about are as follows:
25.
solar flux sub 72 or lower
26.
solar wind sub 300 km/sec or lower
27.
ap index sub 5
28.
solar irradiance off .2% or more
29.
uv light emissions off upwards of 50%
30.
None of the above has happened since the solar Dalton Minimumon a sustained basis following many years of sub solar activity.
This decade with the first prolonged solar minmium since the Dalton Minimum offers us an opportunity to see just how much or how little of an impact certain solar parameters will have on the climate in general.
31.
Again because of the reasons given earlier the exact impacts are impossible to quantify.
32.
33.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Enter your comment here…
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.
Almost all of your points are unsubstantiated and wishful thinking and as such do not deserve serious consideration.
Leif there is very good evidence that solar variations and climatic responses correlate.
Your insistence to this not be the case is absurd.
Henry@MA Vukcevik
I wonder if you are aware of the fact that a “quiet” sun is not a “cooler” sun
even though a quiet sun does seem to bring (global) cooling to earth
??
For Otter @ur momisugly 2:32am
Otter, tell your detractor if he has the courage of his convictions, he can come here and “educate” us. We’ll see if he can do any better than Jai Mitchell.
TSI does not run counter to the AP index, once very prolonged solar minimum conditions are established. Example would be the recent solar irradiance decline of -.015% while the ap index was in the tank.
Leif your not going to get away with your false statements when it comes to solar/climatic relationships.
You have no clue.
Many (if not all) really missed the boat when they looked at TSI, didn’t see any effect and ruled sunspots out as a factor. If they had thought of conservation of energy and looked at the sunspot time-integral they might have discovered what actually drives the average global temperature. Change to the level of non-condensing ghg has no significant effect.
One corroborating study is described at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html . This shows a trajectory based on the sunspot number time-integral beginning in 1610. The decline of the LIA and rapid rise since approximately 1941 are evident.
After about 1895, accurate temperature measurements were made world wide and revealed the oscillations above and below the sunspot-number-time-integral-trajectory. The oscillations are caused by the net effect of ocean cycles (which are dominated by the PDO). The resulting graph and physics-based equation that accurately (R2=0.9) calculates the measured anomaly trend are shown at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Several other informative links are in the References at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
Leif there is very good evidence that solar variations and climatic responses correlate.
When you look beyond wishful thinking the ‘evidence’ fades away. For example, the widely touted cosmic ray – cloud – climate correlation does not hold up: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”.
I stand corrected on my previous post, you were repyling to someone else that thought tsi and the ap index ran counter.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:54 am
I stand corrected on my previous post
I’m happy to participate in your continued education, although from other threads it seems you are a slow learner. But I have great experience with people suffering from that disorder.
@Stephen Fisher Rasey
as stated before I think we will not be moving towards a LIA
we are simply moving back to where we were in 1950
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
we will have to adapt?
Robin Hewitt says:
August 10, 2013 at 3:20 am
But if the sun is causing a little ice age, that could be used to explain the current lack of warming. The Warmistas can argue that the CO2 warming is there as predicted but masked out by the change in solar activity.
———————-
Late last year after posting a thought multiple times about the possibility of a grand minimum one warmist stated that they had already thought of that, and the expected cooling would be no more than 0.3C. To which I answered that ‘I had never heard any of the warmists talking about a grand minimum and that some even seemed to think that they weren’t real or at the least predictable’. I further asked him how they could forecast such a number from a phenomenon that they didn’t even believe in. He had no answer for that question.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:38 am
One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
It looks as you could be wrong, this graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap-n.htm
shows that the evidence is overwhelming
It is worth remembering that not all CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetosphere.
On the other hand it is correct to say that longer term smoothed Ap would follow to some extent smoothed TSI, which may lead to a conclusion that the Ap is made of two variables. I leave that to your ‘scientific curiosity instinct’ to ponder, since my knowledge isn’t up to resolving the issue.
vukcevic says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:04 pm
“One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.”
It looks as you could be wrong, this graph…
Shows that Ap and TSI vary together. It is just that the relationship is a bit more complicated than you think. Very large sunspots darken the solar surface and generate the sharp down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]. But these are rare and the day-to-day variation over the solar cycle shows a different relationship: the usual solar cycle variation of TSI and Ap in a positive correlation. This has been known for decades and now you know it too.
Leif it does not hold up because the degree of magnitude and duration of time of ALL the solar activity/variations since the Dalton Solar Minimum has not been pronounced enough. The sun has featured a more or less steady 11 year sunspot rhymic cycle since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended and any solar effects with the sun behaving in this manner are going to be compensated for by climatic random changes happening here on earth such as volcanic activity, enso, the pdo /amo phase etc etc. Earth climatic random changes will mask any solar effects, when weak because the sun has to reach a certain degree of magnitude change /duration of time in order to exert an influence on earthly climatic random changes. You don’t understand this.
I have long held the view that solar activity since the end of the Dalton accomplished one thing bringing the climate from Dalton conditions to post Dalton conditions, and nothing more since, the sun displayed a pattern of high activity which featured a steady 11 year sunspot cycle with lulls and peaks all of which will accomplished NOTHING when it comes to the sun having a major impact on the climate.
You need EXTREME solar changes, and duration of time has to be sufficiently long, otherwise the inherent negative feedbacks in the earth climatic system are going to overwhelm small solar effects.
That is what you do not understand.
However the present prolonged solar minimum I think will have the extreme solar changes and duration of time necessary to bring about climatic change this time, following enough sub solar years of activity..
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:15 pm
However the present prolonged solar minimum I think will have the extreme solar changes
That is your problem: ‘you think‘ but you have no evidence that there is any validity to your wishful thinking. Perhaps believe would be a better rendition of your affliction. ‘Thinking’ may be too presumptuous.
Leif that is why so many of the correlations you look for don’t really hold up or if they do hold up for a while they don’t stand the test of time. I think I am right ,think about it.
My opinion of your knowlege Leif is high even though I disagree with you on solar /climatic relationships. Still you know your astronomy that is for sure, but the climate part I think is where you are weak. Just my opinion..
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm
the climate part I think is where you are weak. Just my opinion..
and your ‘expertise” in matters of climate comes from where? is based on what?
With a Polar jet swinging from the north and the south,then we can expect a very changeable climate. With large swings between hot/cold and wet/dry rather then a large amount of cooling.
The big chill starts when a “ice age pattern” starts to form over a number of years.
Where there is a southern tracking Polar jet that goes zonal over a large area of the NH and a lot of weather activity over the poles. This set up allows large broad areas of high pressure to form a band around the Arctic circle. Which in winter would cause bitter cold weather over large areas of the NH.
Vukcevic:
It is also worth noting that the solar flairs and CMEs (as represented by Ap) are accompanied by fall in the TSI
Svalgaard:
One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
Vukcevic:
this graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap-n.htm
shows that the evidence is overwhelming
Svalgaard:
Very large sunspots darken the solar surface and generate the sharp down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]. …now you know it…..
Vukcevic:
Now we both know it
I can go with believe in contrast to think. In my earlier post I wish you would read the one I sent at 11:44am and read points 8 through 13, and then you might see my angle in all of this,and why I say what I say to you when it comes to solar/climate relationships.
If it is not extreme changes on the sun, what else is it?. What other mechinisim changes back and forth enough times and in a period of time short enough to explain all the the abrupt climatic changes on earth other then the sun?
There is nothing else for other things take to long, are one time events, or only work on a regional basis
I can’t think of any climatic events originating on the earth that would flip back and forth in a degree of magnitude strong enough and often enough to cause all the abrupt past climatic changes here on earth.
It has to be an extra terrestrial source,that source being the sun. The sun is the engine that drives the atmospheric/oceanic circulations therefore any changes if significant enough(on the sun) must affect those circulations in my opinion.
And they would be right. An increase in CO2 causes heat retention in the atmosphere. That isn’t debated – it is what happens next that is hotly (PTP) debated. Nobody knows what effect CO2 warming has on the climate because nobody has a clear idea what the feedbacks are. Maybe it causes a LIA event or a pleasant warming that is beneficial to Canadian farmers – we don’t know. What we know with a great deal of certainty is that it does not do what they (the climate hysteria advocates) say it does.
Leif I must rather converse with someone that does not agree with me, [than] does. I like it even though it is frustrating.
I do the weather for a living. Also did it in the military, studied it in college.
SdP/Leif says
3.
I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.
4.
The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.
5.
If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.
henry says
thx for agreeing (NOT THAT BAD)
Note that I said that …cooling started in 1995 (maxima= energy-in), even though global cooling did not start until at least 3 or 4 years later (means=energy out)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
the best fit for the drop in the speed of maximum temps. is
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
anything else would show up much larger global cooling….
clearly there is a lag between max’s and means
OTOH I sort of also expect a “warped” decline of my sine wave
as each quarter portion of the wave of (average) 22 years (=2 solar cycles)
seems to vary by a no. of years
You could help me by telling me what the no. of years from 1995 for the next quarter will be…