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:
William Astley says:
“The current solar magnetic cycle change appears to be the specific special solar magnetic cycle that causes Heinrich events.”
Heinrich events would have to be a whole series of weak solar cycles over one or two centuries, you won’t be able to tell from this cycle. Every 10th cycle there will be 2-3 weak cycles from regular phase catastrophe (as in SC’s 24&25). Clearly there are weak cycles that occur away from the 110.7yr nodes too, there’s bound to be at least one per century, but it would take a long string of those to produce some thing like the 8.2Kyr event. I don’t see any evidence for that happening this century.
HenryP says:
“Unfortunately I know nothing of astronomy.”
“pity you guys do not have any results, so all you do is speculate…
anyways, I am going with the saturn and uranus switch
perhaps Uranus’ apparent sideways motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) as distinct from the other planets operates as a pushpull trigger”
I never had much luck when I speculated on mechanisms first, neither does anyone else by the look. I did once speculate on a magnetic push-pull from Uranus, but it was a cul-de-sac. Just empty your mind, eyes wide open, and push on hard until you see something really big.
WILLIAM ASTLEY
“there will also be significant high Arctic and Greenland Ice sheet cooling. (5C to 6C cooling in the high Northern latitudes.) ”
I am already seeing this type of winter temperature drops in Canada since last year , The Prairies and Northwestern Forest regions of Canada saw a drop of 4.9C and 4.7C from last winter. The Arctic Tundra, mountains and Fiords saw a drop of 4C and 3.9C since 2010 . Canadian winters nation wide were 2.5 C colder than 2010. These are the deep land areas where the cooling is going to show up first . The very cold winters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were the first indication of what happens when solar flux drops to very low levels near solar minimums. As the solar flux drops below 100 and to levels like 67-80 levels in the next few years , these cold winters may continue for the Northern Hemisphere nations
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:25 am
I am not. If you prefer call the pores a group. The `sunspot group` evolves as you note and its lifetime is typically one rotation of the sun. The pore group`s lifetime is ½ to ¼ rotation of the sun.
You cannot nilly-willy change established terminology if your goal is to communicate. From the sunspot literature: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lifetime-Groups.pdf [Table V] you can see that 39.5% of all sunspot groups only live one day and that 53.5% only live two days or less. Pores [and groups that are pores] live even shorter lives.
Are you saying it is impossible that the sun could be spotless mid-2014 by the end of 2014?
You are moving the goalpost. You used to say end of ‘this year’. Come 2014 you’ll say end of 2015, and so on. And, yes, I hold it to be highly unlikely that the sun wil be spotless the second half of 2014. You are sufficiently vague to have an out [just in case]. I interpret your statement to mean that for six months [July-Dec 2014] there will be no spots whatsoever on the Sun [you can sharpen that to ‘how many days?”, 20, 50, 100?]. Another interpretation is that there would at least one day with no spots. If so, that is not unusual, just check our cycle 14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png where there were several days where the sunpot number was zero [check the yellow curve] at solar max 1905-1908.
Any comment on the reduction in the solar large scale magnetic field cycle to cycle to cycle?
First you should define what you mean by the ‘solar large scale magnetic field’. I interpret the phrase as mean the dipolar polar field [the largest magnetic strucure on the Sun]. That field waxes and vanes all the time, sometimes it is large, sometimes it is small. Only a very small part [one in a 1000] of the solar magnetic field erupting on the surface makes it to the poles [the rest is cancelled out on its way]. That is the magnetic flux of only about 5 active regions compared to the more than 3000 that occur in a typical cycle. Small-number statistics being what it is, that number could by chance to 3 or 6 or any other small number [tossing a coin 5 times you can easily end up with 4 heads].
Comment: Your attitude in this forum is flippant and sarcastic
Actually factual and to the point.
you do not understand the implications of significant abrupt cooling.
First of all, there is no cooling [yet]; secondly, the implications have nothing to do with the causes.
The current solar magnetic cycle change appears to be the specific special solar magnetic cycle that causes Heinrich events. The Heinrich cooling occurs from time to time (roughly every 8000 to 10,000 years)
You use the word ‘appears’ a lot. Appearances can often decieve, and are usually just wishful thinking. Heinrich events may have a simple explanation “During the last glacial time, large ice sheets rimmed the North Atlantic. At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic. Heinrich events are an extreme example of this, when the Laurentide ice sheet disgorged excessively large amounts of freshwater into the Labrador Sea in the form of icebergs”. We don’t have a handy Laurentide ice sheet at the present, so no Heinrich event appears to be forthcoming.
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 12:25 am
The Heinrich cooling
It appears that Heinrich events are triggered by warming in during the 1000-2000 years before the events [no cooling], so it appears that the solar pores have little to do with the events.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/33/13415 “temperature increasing by approximately 2 °C over a 1–2 kyr interval prior to a Heinrich event.”.
Here http://www.heinrichevents.org/masterpage.php?&p=references you can learn more about Heinrich events.
Ulric lyons
I did once speculate on a magnetic push-pull from Uranus, but it was a cul-de-sac.
henry says
how on earth did you end up there?
Let’s do this together?
The graphs here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
represent almost all of my data on maximum temps.
The relevant dates that I extracted / projected from my 2 graphs there are ,
1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
2) max speed of cooling or warming & turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus 1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus 1919, 1965, 2009,
Note that in all 7 of my results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the switch” occurs.
It is those two planets working together that seem to stop runaway cooling or runaway warming…
The other planets probably have some interference either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit.
Before anyone here starts throwing me with temp. anomaly graphs from year voetsek:
Can I remind you that the global temperature record we have before 1927 is at best just sketchy. We donot really have a global temp. baseline to work with before that time. Using CET only is a trap, because of the weather…. This means that for the observer, it would seem as if global temp. were going up from 1927 onward, as per my quoted graphs.
Herkimer said
The Prairies and Northwestern Forest regions of Canada saw a drop of 4.9C and 4.7C from last winter. The Arctic Tundra, mountains and Fiords saw a drop of 4C and 3.9C since 2010 . Canadian winters nation wide were 2.5 C colder than 2010. These are the deep land areas where the cooling is going to show up first . The very cold winters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were the first indication of what happens when solar flux drops to very low levels near solar minimums. As the solar flux drops below 100 and to levels like 67-80 levels in the next few years , these cold winters may continue for the Northern Hemisphere nations
henry says
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
If you look there: here is what I said:
“As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.”
I have been trying to work out when the droughts
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
will start.
As explained/CALCULATED in my previous post, it appears 1927=2016
From 1927 is 5 years to 1932. So these droughts will start in ca. 2020-2021
We only have about 7 “fat” years left….
Please move south, you all there at > 40 latitudes….
If you already experience cooling and droughts now, you must remember that it will not get any “better” in the next two or three decades….
Leif,
You appear to attempt to distract the conversation from what is current happening to the sun and global cooling by asserted that what I am stating is not back by peer reviewed papers and observations. Livingston and Penn’s peer reviewed paper asserted that a linear extrapolation of the decline in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots indicates the sun will be spotless in 2015.
The average lifetime of a numbered sunspot group is not a day or two. The key measured variable is numbered sunspot group.
It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores due to an unexplained change that has happened to the sun. There is no NASA explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced by pores. A pore is not the same as a sunspot which is the reason why a pore is called a pore rather than a sunspot. The lifetime of a pore group is less than the lifetime of sunspot group which makes sense physically.
As I stated pores are counted as if they were sunspots, which hides the observational fact that sunspots have gradually disappeared and have been replaced by short lived numerous pores. A sun that is covered with pores is different than a sun that is covered by sunspots.
2009 EOS
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.
Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Leif is never going to concede to being wrong on his notions that the sun does not drive the climate, even n the face of past history which clearly shows this to be the case.
Leif continues to not appreciate the fact that the solar variations since the close of the Dalton Minimum were not extreme enough to overcome random earthly climatic fluctuations therefore causing solar /climatic correlations to appear not to hold up or not stand the test of time.
Leif you will learn as this decade proceeds if the prolonged solar minimum turns out to be as weak as forecasted by many of us that you are wrong.
Leif you just don’t get how the climatic system of earth functions which is, it is non linear with thresholds, meaning the same climatic forcings can give a different climatic result.
That is why it is hard to get direct solar/climatic correlations when the sun has a limited amount of variability and at the same time has gone from lulls to peaks on a regular basis since coming out of the Dalton Solar Minimum.
I many times that since we came out of the Dalton Minimum the solar effects did NOT VARY ENOUGH, and therefore would be masked by earthly random climatic events. Another words you are (Leif) just proving my points that the solar climate connection in recent times is hard to find.
What you fail to understand is ,there are threshold solar values and duration of time for these solar values following years of sub -solar activity in general that will be able to exert enough influence on the climatic system of earth through direct and secondary effects which will result in the climate to change and correlate with the sun when the solar activity reaches extreme values for a long enough duration of time.
I (said) many times, it should read in the above post
Abrupt climatic change will come about when solar parameters reach a degree of magnitude strong enough and a duration of time long enough which will result in bringing the climate system of earth to some sort of a threshold through direct and secondary effects.
Again the degree of magnitude change and duration of time has to be sustained for a long enough period of time.
The sun is the only item which influences the climate, that changes enough often enough in intensity that can explain these many abrupt climatic changes.
Leif has no alternative explanations.
William Astley says:
August 12, 2013 at 9:17 am
Livingston and Penn’s peer reviewed paper asserted that a linear extrapolation of the decline in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots indicates the sun will be spotless in 2015.
Livingston, Penn, and my peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf states “By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores”. We do not suggest that the Sun will be spotless in 2015.
The average lifetime of a numbered sunspot group is not a day or two. The key measured variable is numbered sunspot group.
All peer reviewed papers on this subject show that most sunspot groups only live a day or two. By limiting yourself to numbered groups you bias the selection as only long-lived groups are numbered.
It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores due to an unexplained change that has happened to the sun. There is no NASA explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced by pores.
Livingston, Penn, and myself are the experts on this subject; what we know is what NASA knows. What is happening is we are losing the pores and the small spots.
As I stated pores are counted as if they were sunspots
No, pores are not and have never been counted as sunspots. They are explicitly excluded. If you want to know how sunspots are counted, check my peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf . In this other peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf there are more details on how it is done.
Now, there might be some confusion as to what a pore is. In the Zurich tradition, pores are short-lived [hours] ‘grayish’ areas less than 3 arc seconds in diameter which are not counted. In some English-language papers spots without penumbrae are considered pores. These are classified as types A and B in the standard classification of groups. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Freq-small-groups.png you can see that the frequency of the smallest spots types A and B [which you may think are pores] has been dropping steadily the past 60+ years, so, contrary to your claim, there are relatively fewer and fewer ‘pores’ not more and more.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 12, 2013 at 9:53 am
Leif you will learn as this decade proceeds if the prolonged solar minimum turns out to be as weak as forecasted by many of us that you are wrong.
I didn’t know you had expertise in forecasting solar activity. Now, it is well-known that I have.
I many times that since we came out of the Dalton Minimum the solar effects did NOT VARY ENOUGH, and therefore would be masked by earthly random climatic events. Another words you are (Leif) just proving my points that the solar climate connection in recent times is hard to find.
You are in conflict with all the people claiming that the effect is obvious and large, but it is good to see that you realize that there is no evidence for any solar influence.
What you fail to understand is ,there are threshold solar values and duration of time for these solar values following years of sub -solar activity in general that will be able to exert enough influence on the climatic system of earth through direct and secondary effects which will result in the climate to change and correlate with the sun when the solar activity reaches extreme values for a long enough duration of time.
Indeed, except ‘fail to understand is’ might be replaced by ‘are unimpressed by dubious, unsubstantiated, wishful claims that’
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:14 am
Leif has no alternative explanations.
Your assertion is no explanation, just wishful thinking without evidence.
“Why an Ice Age Occurs Every 100,000 Years: Climate and Feedback Effects Explained”
“Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.
“Milankovitch’s idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle,” says Blatter. “However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately.”
insolation, Sun, seems to be important, didnt read about the all important CO2
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm
Richard says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:53 am
insolation, Sun, seems to be important, didnt read about the all important CO2
But be careful to get the story right. The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.
“The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.”
Yes but seems to over ride CO2.
Leif says
but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.
henry says
interesting now, to see you have to agree with me that the planets do affect the climate on earth
PS “Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. ..While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it.”
Unable to find a plausible explanation? I thought climate scientists had explained everything and now all we had to do is to tax the west and shut down power plants to control the climate.
HenryP says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:05 am
interesting now, to see you have to agree with me that the planets do affect the climate on earth
‘have to agree’ is nonsense. This has been known for decades and the influence is not what you think. I don’t think you have been peddling the Milankovitch theory. Amazing the contortions some people will go to.
leif says.
Amazing the contortions some people will go to.
henry says
ehhh.. (scratching) the few hairs left on my head0
perhaps you could stop talking to yourself on this thread?
HenryP says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:14 am
perhaps you could stop talking to yourself on this thread?
I was talking about and to you. The Milankovitch theory has nothing to do with your ideas, and my mentioning the M theory is not ‘agreeing with’ you, and certainly not ‘having to’. My comment was about your false assertion that I come around ‘having to agree’ with your silly ideas.
.
leif says
My comment was about your false assertion that I come around ‘having to agree’ with your silly ideas
henry says
you don’t have to agree with anything I say,
in fact, please don’t
the future will prove me right
i was talking about you talking to your alter ego, Salvatore del Prete
\
it seems you don’t even know how to spell that name correctly
(e.g. d cannot be a capital)
as evident from previous post (Del=Dep)
remember?
HenryP says:
August 12, 2013 at 11:33 am
i was talking about you talking to your alter ego, Salvatore del Prete
it seems you don’t even know how to spell that name correctly
It seems that Salvatore does not know to spell his own name:
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:14 am
Perhaps he is not man enough to use his own real name…
I spelled my name correctly. lol
Leif, you appeared to be making inaccurate statements which is odd. You comment concerning the number of pores decreasing rather than increasing for solar cycle 24 is factually incorrect.
Why are you making factually incorrect statements?
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”.
You note the fact that in last 60 years as we are in grand solar maximum there are few pores. Pores are very common for solar cycle 24 which is what we are discussing.
It is almost as if our comments are an attempt to distract attention away from the fact the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots in solar cycle 24 are decaying linearly. As Livingston and Penn note: ‘There are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength less than 1500 Gauss.’ Livingston and Penn’s analysis indicates the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots will be less than 1500 Gauss in 2015, hence no sunspots. “Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1)”
2009 EOS
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
“The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.
Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.”
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. The physical reason for this the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly.
Lief : “The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.”
I read somewhere that the gravitational effect is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances.
Thus Venus has about 58% of the gravitational effect on the Earth as Jupiter.