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:
Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm
What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
They meet a solar ultraviolet photon, become ionized and caught by the solar wind and swept back out of the heliosphere, and have no impact on climate.
By itself coupled oceanic/atmospheric global overturning circulation does not represent incoming or outgoing energy and so does not affect the energy balance. It is only a thrashing of energy that is already here and which I find uninteresting. This being the case it is an excellent example of why I don’t like temperature as a measure of the balance of energy between Earth and the rest of the universe. AGW hysterics are betting their entire wad on incoming solar energy outpacing outgoing energy and blaming CO2 (actually, they’re blaming people) for the “increasing imbalance”. Temperature of the atmosphere alone doesn’t inform us of the state of the balance.
If the above circulation means the oceans are warming by absorbing heat from the air above then I’d like to see the data and a model of the process.
lgl says: @ur momisugly August 10, 2013 at 11:11 am
….. One argument could be that rising sea level can be a problem, but I think it will happen to slowly to become a serious problem, and a colder planet is a bigger problem than a warmer planet…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At least we can all agree on that. Cold does a real tap dance on the food supply. A lot of our grain producing areas are in ‘Marginal’ climates like Canada, Russia and China.
Koppen World Map map with classification key link
This is the real I gottcha. map link
It shows the Koppen climate boundaries by decade in the US midwest grain belt. For the state of Kansas the boundary moves three quarters of the state north from 1970 to 1980/1990. That is ~ 150 miles (240 k) or more.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm
What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
They meet a solar ultraviolet photon, become ionized and caught by the solar wind and swept back out of the heliosphere, and have no impact on climate.
—
That would be just one of about 3 processes that the ENA (energetic neutral atoms) go through. Sounds like the photoionization processes, one. They call it the filtration processes. But they know that not all of them get filtered out. Same article says the ‘a’ word, Accretion.
Here’s wiki definition for accretion.
Accretion (astrophysics)
The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disk.[1] Accretion disks are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disk are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
dp says:
August 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm
….If the above circulation means the oceans are warming by absorbing heat from the air above then I’d like to see the data and a model of the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can take a look at my silly wild donkey guess at comment
I think you are looking at not one factor like just the TSI of the sun but several factors all working together.
Speaking of SWAGs.
Here are a couple others link 1 and link 2 and a paper link 3
Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Same article says the ‘a’ word, Accretion.
The amount of mass is negligible compared to the solar wind so ACRs don’t matter.
Leif said:
“Then in the early 1970s colleagues […] 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.”
You give up too easy. The correlations to solar metrics have to be there else my planetary ordered solar based long range weather forecasts would not perform as well as they do.
This week, I have made a major breakthrough in identifying the planetary forcing that decides the real timing of solar cycle maximum in each cycle, and shows exactly why two or occasionally three cycles every 110.7yrs on average, are weak. You wouldn’t believe how simple it is.
Ulric Lyons says:
August 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm
The correlations to solar metrics have to be there else my planetary ordered solar based long range weather forecasts would not perform as well as they do. … You wouldn’t believe how simple it is.
You are correct about that, and I doubt you can make anybody else believe it.
This article is pretty tough going for me Dr.S.
Modulation of neutral interstellar He, Ne, O in the heliosphere.
Survival probabilities and abundances at IBEX
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4463.pdf
Astronomy & Astrophysics July 18, 2013
M. Bzowski1, J. M. Sokół1, M. A. Kubiak1, and H. Kucharek2
1 Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland,
2 Space Science Center and Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire,
Durham NH, USA
…Neutral interstellar species enter freely the heliosphere from the LIC and flow towards
the Sun. While direct sampling of NIS atoms at Earth’s orbit is ideologically simple,
interpretation of the measurements to infer the abundances in the LIC requires
taking into account ionization losses and modifications of the flux by
solar gravitational accretion.
This is usually referred to as the heliospheric filtration.
As discussed by a number of authors (Izmodenov et al. 2004; Müller & Zank 2004),
this filtration is a complex, 2-step, species-dependent process. The first step is the
filtration through the heliospheric interface region, the second is extinction due to
the ionization inside the termination shock (TS), i.e., within the supersonic solar wind.
Upon entry into the heliospheric interface region, neutral interstellar gas first passes
through the outer heliosheath (OHS) just outside the heliopause, which may
be regarded as a bow wave in the interstellar gas. Until recently it was believed that
due to the supersonic speed of the heliosphere in the LIC the outer boundary of this
region is a bow shock, but recent findings by Bzowski et al. (2012); Möbius et al. (2012)
suggest that this velocity is significantly lower, which prompted McComas et al.
(2012) to propose that the bow wave is not a shock and its exact nature depends
on a number of parameters whose values are not precisely known.
Regardless, however, of the exact properties of the heliospheric bow wave,
the plasma flow decouples from the neutral component flow in the OHS.
Consequently, charge exchange reactions between the neutral interstellar atoms
and ions in this region lead to the creation of another population of neutral
atoms, the so-called secondary population (Izmodenov et al.2001)….
Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm
This article is pretty tough going for me Dr.S.
Modulation of neutral interstellar He, Ne, O in the heliosphere
First remember that perhaps 95% of the atoms in interstellar space are Hydrogen, so they are talking about a very small amount of matter.
Until recently it was believed that due to the supersonic speed of the heliosphere in the LIC the outer boundary of this region is a bow shock, but recent findings by Bzowski et al. (2012); Möbius et al. (2012) suggest that this velocity is significantly lower, which prompted McComas et al. (2012) to propose that the bow wave is not a shock
However, that very same McComas has even more recently [about a month ago] repeated the calculations with a better model and now suggests that there is a bow shock after all http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718111325.htm
I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..
Based on our current solar polar fields strength and squashed heliospheric bubble.. which one of the images would you select that might more closely resemble our solar system?
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010906/D2-Astrospheres.jpg
So much stuff going on .. I didn’t know this was out there.
Check out this far-out new solar image of the suns magnetic field carpet.
New and Remarkable Details of Sunspots Now Available from NJIT’s Big Bear Observatory
http://www.njit.edu/news/2013/2013-262.php
NEWARK, Aug 6 2013
Researchers at NJIT’s Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in Big Bear, CA have obtained new and remarkably detailed photos of the Sun with the New Solar Telescope (NST). The photographs reveal never-before-seen details of solar magnetism revealed in photospheric and chromospheric features.
“With our new generation visible imaging spectrometer (VIS),” said Wenda Cao, NJIT Associate Professor of Physics and BBSO Associate Director, “the solar atmosphere from the photosphere to the chromosphere, can be monitored in a near real time. One image was taken with VIS on May 22, 2013 in H-alpha line center. The lawn-shaped pattern illustrates ultrafine magnetic loops rooted in the photosphere below.” ..
Carla says:
August 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm
I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..
All that takes place way out there and does not influence the sun, its cycle, or our climate.
Based on our current solar polar fields strength and squashed heliospheric bubble..
Hard to say, as the changes to our heliosphere due to polar fields, solar cycle, etc are very small and we are looking at our heliosphere from the inside. We are only now getting a glimpse of what it might be like, but I’m sure that the ENA method will tell us more in the years to come.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am
The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.
William:
It does not matter whether a Danish newspaper article uses the word can, may, or will in regard to the current solar magnetic cycle change causing planetary cooling. The point is the public is aware there has been a significant solar magnetic cycle change and one group of people have provided logical reasons to support the assertion that the planet will cool. The warmists have over and over again stated that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and not due to solar magnetic cycle changes. There is a clear difference in scientific positions. There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.
Leif, you are stuck in the solar lukewarm paradigm. You have not accepted the possibility that your paradigm is incorrect, that some of your fundamental beliefs are incorrect. You are assuming that there cannot be significant cooling of the planet. We understand that based on your paradigm the ‘solar lukewarm paradigm’ solar magnetic cycle changes cannot ‘theoretically’ significantly change planetary temperature.
Comment:
The lukewarm solar magnetic cycle paradigm is that changes to TSI is the only solar mechanism that changes planetary temperature in the past and currently. We all get the lukewarm solar magnetic cycle paradigm. We do not however believe the solar lukewarm paradigm is correct based on an analysis of the paleo climatic record, an analysis of the warming in the last 150 years and an analysis of how the planet responses to forcing changes (feedback issue) by Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Choi, and so on and the work of Bond, Eddy, Svensmark, Tinsley, Yu, and so on concerning mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes directly and indirectly modulate planetary clouds and planetary temperature. Yes I have read the paper you keep showing that states there is no proof after 20 years of analysis that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds. I believe however that that paper is not correct. I can in detail explain why the GCR cloud modulation mechanism was inhibited in the last 15 years (see below why it is not necessary or productive to argue this issue).
This is, however, no longer a theoretical issue. If the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years and the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes is correct, the planet will significantly cool. The warming will reverse. We will over the next few years determine by observation whether the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycles changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not correct.
It does not matter logically/scientifically or from the standpoint of the climate war how many scientists agree or disagree with the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Observational evidence will unequivocally resolve the issue. Significant cooling is only possible if a majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.
Try to imagine significant cooling has occurred and the scientific community is forced to try to explain how that is physically possible. The scientific community will be forced to explain the observations and will be forced to look for errors in the models and the fundamental assumptions.
Comment:
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle change. The warming pattern in the last 150 years does not match the pattern of warming predicted by the CO2 forcing mechanism. The warming pattern in the last 150 years is the same as previous cyclic warming. The tropical troposphere has not warmed as predicted by the general circulation model which indicates that there are one or more fundamental errors in the general circulation models. There is in the detailed paleo record a delay of 10 to 12 years (roughly one solar cycle) from the time the solar cycle period increases to the start of observed cooling. There is now the first observational evidence of cooling.
In support of:
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
5.
Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.
William:
I support your statement. Sunspots are turning into pores. The solar large scale magnetic field intensity is dropping cycle by cycle. As noted above denying the fact that there is a major solar magnetic cycle change underway will not distract the public from connecting the solar magnetic cycle change and planetary cooling.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
@Scarface and lgl
Density of sea water, try this. Pressure is important too.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/water_density_calculator.html
William Astley says:
August 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm
There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.
I hope you’ll accept the verdict when it is in.
You are assuming that there cannot be significant cooling of the planet.
Nonsense, the planet has cooled many times in the past.
We understand that based on your paradigm the ‘solar lukewarm paradigm’ solar magnetic cycle changes cannot ‘theoretically’ significantly change planetary temperature.
My position is not based on theory, but on the lack of evidence [not of claims, mind you] that all cooling episodes are caused by the Sun.
I believe however that that paper is not correct.
Beliefs are not high on my list
The warming will reverse.
Assertion with no justification
We will over the next few years determine by observation whether the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycles changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not correct.
You are stuck on the idea that solar activity and CO2 are the only possible causes for climate variability.
Observational evidence will unequivocally resolve the issue.
Nonsense. Whatever happens can be considered the sum of two contributions [sun and CO2] and you will not be able to say how much of each. Like 8 is the sum of 1 and 7, 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, but if you have 8 you cannot tell which of the four possibilities gave you the 8.
There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle change.
Meaningless statement. If there are 100 cooling/warming episodes and just 2 of them correlate, the statement would be true.
denying the fact that there is a major solar magnetic cycle change underway
You forget that I am one of the foremost proponents for a major qualitative change. You got that idea from me and my work, summarized in http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
Pamela Gray says:
August 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm
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
As a youngster growing up at just a few hundred foot above sea level I was always impressed when the local shallow lakes turned over. Moved up into the mountains and began striped bass fishing large deep clear water reservoirs. I was way more impressed, now those puppies really turn over compared to their shallow water counterparts. Began wondering about the seas and oceans.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You are correct about that, and I doubt you can make anybody else believe it.”
Not until they see it no, it is such a simple and elegant solution, and thoroughly self evident.
It would be good to see you take up SWC research again, my weather forecasting work would tell you exactly when to look for a change in solar metrics that are causing the AO/NAO variations. And when you get to see how the short term planetary ordering of solar activity functions, you will be able to make deterministic forecasts too.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
////////////////////////////////////////////
I am one of those who considers that most if not all of the (real) temperature changes taking place since the emergence from the LIA is due to natural variability. The question as to what impact solar radiance has on planet Earth cannot be divorced from considering how much penetration there is through the atmosphere itself, and this is where clouds (and other aerosls) quite literally cloud the issue. Without having a full understanding of the patterns of clouds and aerosol particluates for the past couple of hundred years, one cannot begin to determine what effects solar variations may impart.
The real problem is clouds due to their chaotic behavoir. There is the possibility for so much variation and quite small changes in patterns could have significant effect. Slight variations in the time (both seasonally and time of day) that a cloud may form, the length of time it exists before disipation, the height of cloud formation, the area covered, the volume of the cloud, the water vapour and water droplet size of its contenrts, over where on planet Earth is the cloud being formed, the Earth surface albedo over which the cloud is formed etc all play a part in the amount of solar radiance reaching the surface and what warming effect that amount of solar radiance produces.
But if it is the sun itself (rather than subtle changes in Earth’s atmosphere possibly induced by subtle changes in solar output), then surely we should be seeing changes on other planets. So this is interesting times especially if we have high resolution monitoring of other planets (and moons of Jupiter and Saturn).
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, and an extended and deep minimum for 24/25. From 2028 onwards, phase is recovered and as will temperatures, similar to as from 1717 and 1818. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
I would add that first big La Nina being forced by the rise in solar activities from 2027/28 will push global temperatures lower for a while, as in around 1910 and the mid 1940’s, land temperatures will though be higher.
What astounds me in this thread, and in others, is the outright ridicule and rejection of “amateur” comments and opinion by an expert. The guy, an amateur geologist, who theorised that “continents drift”, was ridiculed by “educated” professional geologists. He was proven right! How many other “uneducated non-professionally trained” scientists have had their “theories” (Opinion) proven?
Also @Scarface and lgl
Here is a link to a Water Density Calculator which may also help.
Notice from the chart that for salinity values above 25 psu the maximum density of cold salt water occurs at the freezing point. The chart clearly shows that for sea water with a constant salinity warm water is less dense than cold water so the expected rule “warm water above cold water below” holds in this situation.
However the ocean is not a closed system it is an open system in which both heat exchange and fluid exchange occur at the surface. In the tropics, under the influence of the clear skies and dry down welling air of the Hadley Cell, the water of the ocean surface is warmed by sunlight and the water salinity is also increased by net surface evaporation into the atmosphere. Consequently warm dense surface water is created. This warm surface water can, as the chart shows, be more dense than the colder less saline water from which it was created.
Consequently it is perfectly possible in places where the surface water density increase cause by salinity increase exceeds the density decrease cause by solar energy warming, that warm dense sea water can descend into the ocean.
Leif Svalgaard said on August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am:
“Mommy, can I poke my eye out with this pencil?”
“The pencil is sharp, your arms and hands work just fine. Yes dear, you can poke your eye out with that pencil.”
“Mommy, may I poke my eye out with this pencil?”
“No you may not! The iPhone factory pays less for one-eyed children!”
I think there are nuances of meaning here greater than strength of possibility.
ULRIC LYONS
I agree that there is a 110 year climate cycle .which seems initiate a period of CET cooling lasting about 30+ years. Previous such points were 2000,1890,1780,1670 These happen about the same time as the three low solar cycles happen. Are these temperature changes the result of the solar changes ? that is the debate here . We will have ample opportunity to verify our beliefs during the rest of this decade. i happen to be one that thinks that there is a sun/ weather connection but the complete mechanism is yet to be discovered. The cooling that happen after sustained periods of about 5-10 years , particularly in the winters, when sunspot activity or solar flux drops below certain threshold , is difficult to just write off to other factors without a suitable alternative . How do these alternative forcing factors know when to start global cooling every time the solar flux drops to a certain minimum threshold and after this threshold lasts for a sustained period of 5-10 years. This cooling is apparent during major minimums , at the end of long solar cycles, and even around the years of the regular minimums[unless an El Nino is present] especially when winter temperatures are measured ,
There is a significant solar magnetic cycle change underway. Sunspots are being replaced by pores. The solar large scale magnetic field intensity is significantly dropping cycle by cycle. The physical reasons for the current solar magnetic changes are not understood. The current solar magnetic cycle change is interesting from the standpoint of understanding what physically causes the solar magnetic cycle, understanding the range of variance of the solar magnetic cycle, determining the mechanisms as to how solar magnetic cycle changes affect planetary temperature, and determining how much of the warming in the last 100 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
There is observational evidence that connects past cyclic climate change to solar magnetic cycle changes. The same regions that warmed in the past 100 years are the same regions that warmed cyclically when there were grand solar maximums (series of very active solar magnetic cycles) and then subsequently cooled when the grand solar maximum has followed by a Maunder like solar magnetic cycle minimum. There are nine (9) such cyclic warming and cooling periods in the current interglacial period.
Shaviv in this paper provides observation evidence and quantitative analysis to support the assertion that solar magnetic cycle modulation of cosmic ray flux/planetary cloud cover, TSI, and so on is responsible for 0.47C ±0.19C of the planetary warming in the last 100 years. Based on Shaviv’s analysis the range of global cooling due to the current solar magnetic cycle change is estimated to be 0.47C ±0.19C or cooling in the range of 0.28C to 0.66C.
Planetary cooling of 0.28C to 0.66C is significant (discernible from natural forcing) and measurable. Planetary cooling of 0.28C to 0.66C would provide unequivocal support for the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be less than 1C. The solar magnetic cycle deep minimums have in the past lasted for 30 to 100 years.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization …. …Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47±0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.