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:
DirkH says:
August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am
They have to smear so many different small movements these days their news turns into a hatefest every day.
—————-
Msnbc has a regular group that harass others who disagree or dare to bring up another opinion. Their political page comment section is ridiculous to read or interact in.
I agree two solar cycles is 22 years. The big questions are how weak will the next 22 years be, and how weak do they have to be to have a big impact on the climate?
I hope we can find out one way or the other.I rather be wrong then not know.
Salvatore Del Prete;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither can I. Therefore it must be the sun. Or the moon. Or Jupiter. Or cosmic rays. Or the earth’s magnetic field….
Not being able to think of another reason in no way supports the reason you assert.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I do the weather for a living. Also did it in the military, studied it in college.
Although weather is not climate, one might argue that average weather is climate. Back in the 1970s, research into Sun/Weather/Climate [SWC] was effectively dead as the various correlations people have been claiming ever since solar activity was first linked to weather/climate [in 1659] has all failed with the passage of time. Then in the early 1970s colleagues [among them Walter Orr Reoberts – Founder of NCAR – National Center for Atmospheric Research http://ncar.ucar.edu/ ] and I revived the entire field and for about a decade SWC was considered a valid research field, until the correlations we had uncovered also failed. The effort back then is aptly summarized in this NASA Special Publication #426 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf The text says: ” We are especially indebted to Dr. Ray Wexler, Dr. John M. Wilcox, Dr. S.J. Bauser, and Dr. Leif Svalgaard for reading several complete draft and revisions” so apparently my peers at the time did value my expertise, so your silly claim that I ‘have no clue’ seems misplaced. You may read section 2.5 about my work on the solar sector structure and its possible effect on atmospheric circulation. And section 4.2.3 about our breakthrough [as it was described at the time] work on solar sector influence on atmosphere vorticity and low-pressure systems. Elaborated more in section 4.3.
The whole book deserves to be read. If you do, you will find that there has been no progress in the field since the book was published in 1977. Correlations that were heralded as secure has fallen by the wayside, and the field had once again fallen into disrepute, where it lingers to this day
Finally in 1976, the Nixon Administration sent me as a special US-envoy with expertise in this field to the USSR [the Soviet Union]. to report on progress in the US on SWC and to hear about what work was done in the USSR.
vukcevic says:
August 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Now we both know it
I [and any scientist in the field] have known this for decades. And the explanation [that I gave you] is simple, well-known, and straightforward.
Leif’s apparent belief that climate is random and/or driven by things like volcanoes is simply wishful thinking on his part. His modus operandi as always is the old river-in-Egypt tactic, and heaping helpings of abuse.
A sure sign of pseudoscience is that it doesn’t progress.
And in most fields I would say that no progress in over 30yrs is a sure sign of pseudoscience.
But not in this particular case as… how much new data would you expect in a half century? The Sun and the climate are stable and yet noisy enough that this time period isn’t definitive.
Personally, I agree that this “Sun causes Ice-Age” nonsense is unjustified.
But so is the disproof.
Let us wait for Game of Thrones to become uncool and see then how many people think “Winter is coming”.
Bruce Cobb says:
August 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Leif’s apparent belief that climate is random and/or driven by things like volcanoes is simply wishful thinking on his part. His modus operandi as always is the old river-in-Egypt tactic, and heaping helpings of abuse.
Abuse goes where abuse is due, like in your case. You regularly surface with nonsense like this and deserve no better. Attack the science, not the man to avoid being paid back in kind.
As a Dane i know how well censored Jyllandsposten is just pretending to be pro freedom of expression. That they have cherry picked this issue is however a sensation as the general population in Denmark does not know that there is an alternative to the AGW fairytale spoon feed to them by a psychotic Minister of Climate. Just ponder over that title.
Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there? The proposed mechanism seems capable of amplifying and being damped.
=============
M Courtney says:
August 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm
how much new data would you expect in a half century? The Sun and the climate are stable and yet noisy enough that this time period isn’t definitive.
If we assume that the signal is there just below the noise [the error bar is equal to the noise], then to cut the error bar in half [so the signal becomes acceptable] we need four times as much data, i.e. two centuries. So, come back then and we can continue the discussion 🙂
kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there?
Provide me a [non-paywalled] link to the article to spare me the trouble of hunting for it.
Thank you Leif.
Exactly my point.
We don’t know enough to reject the solar-climate hypothesis,
But we certainly don’t have enough evidence to endorse it. The null hypothesis is that there is no such effect.
The solar-climate hypothesis isn’t junk science. Supporters and curious researchers don’t deserve scorn.
But the solar-climate hypothesis isn’t anything more than an unproven idea… and won’t be until about 2200AD, at least.
Believers do deserve scorn (or pity).
All I have is the abstract. I was sure you’d read it, as it might be the Holy Grail.
===================
kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:12 pm
All I have is the abstract. I was sure you’d read it, as it might be the Holy Grail.
I think they use the outmoded Hoyt&Schatten TSI series [Soon has used that one recently see http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png ] which does not represent what most researchers today think TSI was doing. Therefore there is no ’empirical relationship’ to discuss.
Obviously there are many fascinating scientific and political issues here. But to me the truly fascinating thing about all of this is how myopic it might turn out to be. Yes, the conditions would seem just about right for a little ice age to be just ahead. That is just about as far as anyone myopically takes this.
So my question is simply this, why “little ice age?”
It is difficult to imagine a worse time for a “little” ice age to occur. As of 2013 the Holocene is precisely 11,716 years old (based on the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, essentially a little ice age).
We are at the 23,000 year end of the precession cycle, which makes 11,500 half. Starting to get the picture here?
If one were looking for a climate “tipping point” one need look no further than the major ocean cycles switching to their negative modes, the sun swooning into a low-funk in solar cycle 24 and predicted to go much quieter in solar cycle 25 and perhaps beyond.
So the question really should be asked “Why not a Big Ice Age (BIA)?”
Could a little ice age (LIA) occurring at a half-precession old end extreme interglacial tip us into the next Big one?
So be ever thoughtful of both facts and predictions before leaping to a conclusion. It was in fact a LEAP that terminated the last interglacial, the cold Late Eemian Aridity Pulse which lasted 468 years and ended with a precipitous drop into the Wisconsin ice age. And yes, we were indeed there. We had been on the stage as our stone-age selves about the same length of time during that interglacial that our civilizations have been during this one.
(http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf)
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
CAGW, LIA, LEAP or BIA?
That is the real question in all of this.
An LIA might last on the order of centuries, like other LIA’s (Younger Dryas, LEAP) did. If there was even the remotest possibility that CO2 could function as a “climate security blanket” would you strip it out of the late Holocene atmosphere to deal with a LIA? Would you strip it out to deal with a LEAP? Or would you strip it out so as not to impede nature’s normal descent into the next glacial?
Meanwhile enjoy this darling little interglacial, while it lasts………
OK, thanks, Leif. Now I have to read it, and believe me, the abstract was tough enough for me.
============
kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm
OK, thanks, Leif. Now I have to read it, and believe me, the abstract was tough enough for me.
If you get it, send me a copy, and I’ll take a look.
Hah, Leif, called my bluff. You are far more likely to get the paper, read it, and understand it than I am. Your H&S conjecture satisfied me, but what if they didn’t use that reconstruction?
================
kim says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Hah, Leif, called my bluff. You are far more likely to get the paper, read it, and understand it than I am. Your H&S conjecture satisfied me, but what if they didn’t use that reconstruction?
Scafetta http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.2812.pdf says they did…
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm
………………….
and yet you said:
1.The only instrument with good long-term stability [TIM/SORCE] which began operation in 2003 show that TSI now is the highest ever measured by that sensor.
and
2.One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
TSI highest since 2003, while Ap has fallen in the same period by about 50%
and then
3.down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]
4.I and any scientist in the field have known this for decades.
At best ambiguous, don’t you think so?
1. Ok (I accept your view on that one)
2. Wrong
3. Correct
4. I am not so sure (based on 2. being wrong)
vukcevic says:
August 10, 2013 at 2:57 pm
2.One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
They both show the solar cycle variation. Nobody would assume that they vary in direct proportion to each other and that was not meant.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and
http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php
4.I and any scientist in the field have known this for decades.
At best ambiguous, don’t you think so?
No
For those of you who are unaware of any other possible explanation for global temperature trends (long and short), the one thing I can think of that is both variable enough and powerful enough to fit the energy requirements necessary to push measured temps up or down and sustain that push would be the coupled oceanic/atmospheric global overturning circulation. To be sure, there is no easy answer as it is not well understood at all. But it is thought to have sufficient energy and intrinsic variability to affect measured temps.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt9401.pdf
For those who think that simply demolishing the ACGW meme is enough to get the .gov to stop spending money on ridiculous “alternative” energies or trying to pass tax scams like a carbon tax, consider the fact that until a few short years ago we here in the US were still paying a federal tax on our phone bills that was passed to fund…….wait for it……….the Spanish-American war.
Once embedded, .gov agencies and policies are almost impossible to defund or get rid of entirely.
Well Dr. S., nothing varies enough for a solar/climate effect?
I hear ya loud and clear..
What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
You know, the ones accelerated to ACR levels through the ‘suns very own reconnection to the interstellar regime.’
Those little interstellar blobs the helios sphere runs through at about oooh let’s say 60 to 90 years periods, may be outlining the local background interstellar magnetic field. If such densities run with the power lines.
An occasional interstellar cloud blob as small as an eleven year or so period maybe leftovers from some other phenomena.
And they say this old shell remnant rotates and has a positive and negative component related to rotation.
Now we rotate the helios sphere boat we’re in. Not just ‘rockin it.’ the helios sphere boat, were spinnin’ it too.
There now I’m happy..