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:
herkimer says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:14 am
“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.”
The best proof of solar forcing is not in the macro of cycle forcing, but in the micro of the noise. If I showed you how short term planetary ordering of solar activity is driving the majority of monthly deviations from average through the whole of CET, I’m not so sure there would be room for debate.
Ulric Lyons says
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.
henry says
interesting, I have been working on this as well.
it seems that during a time of minimum sunspots, the 22 year cycle becomes longer (going by Hale-Nicholson)
during max. sunspots it becomes shorter.
Hence, I expect the current solar cycle to become longer.
I am still struggling with the planets, though
I want to figure out when energy-in will be at its lowest
.According to my measurements the last cycle was from 1972-1995.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Unfortunately I know nothing of astronomy.
Please help me out?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 11:04 pm
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.
William:
I will accept the verdict when it is in. If the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary temperature hypothesis is correct there will be the start of significant, unequivocal global cooling (0.28C to 0.66C) in the next few years. If there is no cooling observed in the next few years, observations will have proven that hypothesis to be incorrect.
The amount of cooling that does occur and the period of time the cooling occurs in will help to resolve a number of scientific questions concerning the general circulation models and the relative forcing on planetary climate (past, current, and future): solar magnetic cycle changes VS the increase in atmospheric CO2.
I am also interesting in the physical reasons for the solar magnetic cycle and the range the solar magnetic cycle can vary. The current solar magnetic cycle change will likely also help to answer questions concerning those subjects.
William Astley says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:57 am
f there is no cooling observed in the next few years, observations will have proven that hypothesis to be incorrect.
Unfortunately that will not work. It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun. That will be the argument Warmistas will use, so nothing will be decisive.
Leif says
It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun.
henry says
after x many years and tears at WUWT, you still believe in the carbon dioxide nonsense?
HenryP says:
August 11, 2013 at 7:43 am
after x many years and tears at WUWT, you still believe in the carbon dioxide nonsense?
No, but believers will say that if no cooling happens that CO2 has won out over the Sun, so the issue may not be resolved in “the next few years”.
@ulric
I want to figure out “when energy-in will be at its lowest”
that should be
“when the speed of cooling will be at its highest,”
I am sure you figured that
note that I identified 4 cycles for each quadrant of the Gleissberg cycle
on earth there is some lag between energy in (maxima) and energy out (means)
but I doubt if is really is as much as 110 years.
In some countries perhaps, but not globally.
On ~107 year cycle
Dr. Svalgaard and I had lot of disagreements on that one starting exactly four years ago (August 2009), more details here.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
origins of which appear to be of planetary inter-modulation, it is present in the sunspot cycle (including grand minima), SSN hemispheres asymmetry, Earth’s magnetic field and the global temperatures.
“It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun.”
On the subject of colder winters, CO2 is doing no such thing. Recent winters already show that.
The coupled oceanic atmospheric overturning circulation (plus the coriolis affect combined with the permanent large-scale atmospheric pressure systems) has a great deal of variability and energetic power to affect how much solar shortwave radiation enters the ocean or is reflected away, thus eventually resulting in warming or cooling of our oceans and atmospheres thru teleconnections. The oceans are a fabulous heat storage sink in the upper layers and can send pools of warmer or cooler waters around the globe and belch them up to the surface where they affect land temperatures. And since this circulation can take years and decades, even centuries to complete (the time it takes is not well understood because the coupling is so complex), we can easily deduce that the variable source driver for temperature trends we should be looking for first is intrinsic to Earth and natural.
That the science community jumped on CO2 before completely understanding the natural systems (as the above linked pdf attests) is a testament to the power of political money and emotionally charged persuasion, not detached scientific persistence in understanding the intricacies of the natural systems before looking at anthropogenic minutia.
William Astley said
is estimated to be 0.47C ±0.19C or cooling in the range of 0.28C to 0.66C.
henry says
you did not specify a time period given by this guy but from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
henry@vukcevik
in your last graph there we are looking at temp. anomaly
but from which data set?
I prefer looking at maxima as it gives less noise and shows exactly what energy is coming in
Hi Henry
GT graph shown in here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
is copied from New Scientist published in 2007 before lot of fiddling was done in the last six years.
Pamela Gray says:
August 11, 2013 at 8:13 am
……..
Getting close to the North Atlantic’s contribution
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
but solar link is in there too.
It is very possible that ocean overturning is responsible for major climate changes like the LIA, MWP, etc. If we go back to the last glaciation we know that the sun’s radiation was at a little different angle which led to melting of the vast glaciers covering much of the NH land mass. A relatively quick melting of this ice would inject lots of cold water into the oceans. Actually, much colder than the surface water being heated by the sun. This colder water surfacing and then sinking once again could be responsible for the ~1000 year swings we have seen over the interglacial.
In addition, I suspect there might be smaller cycles within this larger cycle.
Vuk your solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set. Meaning that something far more powerful drives these trends. The solar and CO2 camps ignore powerful intrinsic factors to focus on a belief in minutia that have yet to prove any kind of energy potential necessary to drive and sustain the necessary weather pattern parameters that lead to long term temperature trends. Why I don’t know.
Pamela Gray says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:42 am
The earth’s position & orientation with regard to the sun appear to be the most important determinants of climate on the scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch cycles are IMO well supported. It took decades for this seemingly valid “consensus” to be reached, after evidence like ice & ocean cores accumulated & the relevant orbital mechanics could be worked out, as by Hays, Imbrie & Shackleton, 1976. Thank God there are still some skeptics, without whom science cannot do.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121
As you know, there’s now a growing literature on trying to predict the onset of the next glaciation.
On the scale of millions of years, it’s arguably the positions of & connections among the continents, affecting albedo & oceanic circulation, among other factors. On the scale of tens to hundreds of millions of years, the sun’s increasing output starts to play a significant role. On the scale of billions of years, the location of the sun in its orbit of the galactic center might have an effect. The chemistry & biology of the planet have also been critical, especially in oxygenating the atmosphere & lessening its CO2. In the future, the declining quantity of water & continued solar development will be decisive.
However, on the scale of tens to thousands of years, ie D-O & Bond Cycles & the fluctuations within them, hypotheses vary, as you note. Little changes in CO2 (one to ten molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules) have impact on climate, except perhaps as a minor feedback effect (hundreds to a thousand per 10,000 might possibly be a different matter in the dry atmosphere of a high-albedo Snowball or Slushball Earth). But IMO the jury is still out on the sun’s small variations on this time scale. Maybe it’s purely chaotic within interglacials, but the paleoclimatic record looks pretty cyclic to me. Could well be an illusion, however.
CACCA gained an ideological stranglehold on “climate science” before enough was known about the earth’s system to form such a rigid opinion. Much of what has been learned since the 1980s has been ignored or misinterpreted as a result of adherence to this orthodox doctrine, such as the PDO, discovered by a PNW fisheries researcher in 1997. Shades of plate tectonics. Climate science may now be out of its infancy, but is at best still a toddler, IMO.
On the issue of a little ice age coming: It is of course possible that certain factors, like an incidental extraordinary large shift of cloud formation more towards the equator simultaneous with an extraordinary coverage of large areas with snow, mostly NH, could trap us, amplifying the cooling due to less insolation. In 1940/1 there was a particular large amount of snow in Europe.
However, I am counting on mankind using its ingenuity to be able to reverse that trap, should such a situation occur (usually what would happen is that there would be no spring or summer)
For example, sprinkling carbon (!!) dust on the snow could trap radiation, rather than reflect it back to space.
But alI I am seeing now, is that we will nicely paddle back on our cycle 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/
@pamela
if it were not to be the planets that seem to switch the power of the sun from positive to negative every so often, (see above graph) , then what is it?
Unfortunately the CBC is still at it. Notice they closed the comment section for fear the real story of the flatline temps from ARGO show the story is bunk.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/08/09/science-fish-plankton-relocating-climate-change.html
Pamela Gray says:
August 11, 2013 at 9:42 am
Vuk your solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set. Meaning that something far more powerful drives these trends.
‘’’’’’’’’’’
Let’s see noise or something more powerful.
I think you are very familiar with loaded shotgun and its triggering mechanism.
1. Well, the Arctic is a loaded gun, which goes of intermittently either with powerful earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. It is most lava productive volcanic area on the globe, since 1600 had only 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava output. So tectonic pressures are produced by magma not gasses. At temperatures above melting various compounds are highly conductive (easy movement of electrons) and susceptible to good electric currents inductions.
2. Arctic is constantly exposed to electric currents
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Image1.gif
and the most strongly during solar storms.
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules.
And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Now lets remember that is electric current and is of equal strength in any part of a closed circuit (it has to be closed else there wouldn’t exist).
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up occasionally, possibly randomly unless there is occasional push on the trigger by those powerful currents,
Dr. S will tell you that geomagnetic storms (as measured by Ap index) occur at sunspot cycle rate (most often on declining slope of the cycle)
4. Hence we have the mysterious links
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
And what next?
Remember: 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava
then you can read notes on the
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
There you are: sun, energy, tectonics, lava, blockage of critical passage way, ocean currents, SST and natural temperature variability.
No “solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set.”, but sheer power of the tectonics triggered by powerful electric currents.
But of course you are entitled to your opinions, even to rubbish others without knowing the relevant facts.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
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.
—
Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system
In accretion, the goldilocks zone is the Halo region, out to 1 AU. Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle and our climate. Seeing as how we at Earth are in this ahhh goldilocks zone orbiting inside this density changing halo. Water, water everywhere.
What to do with all those extra electrons.. that seem to be on the increase in the last few years now.
But that’s not today’s question.
Picture the ‘rotation of the magnetic shell’ the solar system is embedded. Picture also a thin current sheet of changing polarity.
vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
No, not at all. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feeds energy into the tail away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].
Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current. This is old hat.
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
The current does not flow through Iceland at all.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
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.
—
Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system
In accretion, the goldilocks zone is the Halo region, out to 1 AU. Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle and our climate. Seeing as how we at Earth are in this ahhh goldilocks zone orbiting inside this density changing halo. Water, water everywhere.
What to do with all those extra electrons.. that seem to be on the increase in the last few years now.
But that’s not today’s question.
Picture the ‘rotation of the magnetic shell’ the solar system is embedded. Picture also a thin current sheet of changing polarity overlaid and rotating in the solar system neighborhood..
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
vukcevic says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
No, not the way it works. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feed energy into the tail of the magnetosphere away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].
Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. An average huricane releases 100,000 times that amount of energy in a day. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current in a substorm. This is old hat: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
The current does not flow through Iceland at all.
P.S. the preview didn’t help me [if I don’t look]
Carla says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system
and where the solar system loses 4 million tons per second…