Guest essay by Eric Worrall
John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Advisor, once tried to reframe the climate debate in terms of his prediction of “global climate disruption”. Holdren stated at the time, that the term “global warming” is “a dangerous misnomer”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/the-morphology-of-global-warming/
The question – does John Holdren believe that “global climate disruption” might actually lead to global cooling? Is this why Holdren is unhappy with the term “global warming”? Is this the advice Holdren is giving to President Obama?
Because there is some very circumstantial evidence that America, and other governments, may already be planning ahead, for the possibility that the world will cool.
Over the last few years, a number of major Australian newspapers have posted stories about the rising issue of large scale foreign buyouts of Australian farmland.
For example:-
The big question is – why? Why would opaque Chinese and American companies, some of are believed to be government backed, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?
The reason of course is the land will not shortly become worthless. The land may shortly become very valuable indeed.
Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Their prediction is based on the historic correlation between solar cycles and global climate.
Humans have been aware of the 11 year climate cycle since the dawn of history – several good years followed by several bad years is a fact of life. But there are also other, longer, more powerful cycles, which have an even larger impact on global climate.
One of them is the 200 year cycle. Every 200 years or so, solar activity falls to a sustained low. These long periods of low activity, known by the names of the scientists who discovered them – Maunder, Dalton, etc. – coincided historically with periods of extreme cold – plummeting global temperatures, crashing food production, and drastically shorter and less reliable growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.
At the peak of the cold periods, history records widespread famines and other disasters, such as the Year Without a Summer in 1816, a food production catastrophe triggered by low solar activity during the Dalton Minimum, combining with an unusually severe series of major volcanic eruptions. In the Year without a Summer, over vast areas, crops in the Northern hemisphere were destroyed by snow and frost in mid Summer, which created global famine and social unrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.
We could even see another year without a summer – there are several large volcanoes which are overdue for major eruptions, such as Katla in Iceland and Merapi in Indonesia. When they erupt, they shall add to downward pressure on global temperatures.
Given the risk, what could a nation whose grain belt is vulnerable to global cooling do, to protect its future food supply?
The obviously solution is to buy up farmland in another country.
A country which is warm enough, so that even if global temperatures fall significantly, the land they purchased would remain highly productive. A country with a strong tradition of respect for the rule of law. A country which would continue to respect the rule of law, even in the face of a global catastrophe.
A country like Australia.
===============================================================
Note: They key word in the title is “very speculative”, but I thought it was an interesting question. It may also simply be part of China’s economic expansion, which we have also witnessed in the USA with them buying up properties. – Anthony
@ren
Both (my) 87 year and his 208 are equally proven
see here
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
Admittedly I do not know exactly where we are in the DeVries cycle,
-enlighten me if you can prove it by measured observations-
but I do know exactly where we are in the Gleissberg cycle.
Henry said
but I do know exactly where we are in the Gleissberg cycle.
Henry@ren
bending point in 2016
see here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
@Eric
Thanks. I did get what you were saying.
Unfortunately I have to take it even further
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
HenryP
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg
Look at the graph for the year 1800, and for 2008 and see for yourself. 208 cycles are very visible in ice cores. Are superimposed with the cycles of 88 years.
In addition, the Sun’s magnetic field is weaker than in the cycles of the early twentieth century.
http://epic.awi.de/13582/1/Bra2005e.pdf
Considering so many commenters here got mad at Lewandowsky, why are you providing him with this much new material? Are you trying to kill him with overwork?
lsvalgaard says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:53 am
“… like there is a small portion of TSI that has an enormous effect, like it is the magnetic field, cosmic rays, aliens, etc, anything to avoid admitting that solar activity has not been observed to have a significant effect on the climate. I wish it had; that would increase the relevance of my research and funding in a big way…”
————————————————–
Dr. Svalgaard,
I would consider Henry’s questions about UV to be quite valid. You will no doubt recall that Jack Eddy said “many plugs”
With regard to UV, the issue is the oceans. Climastrologists have calculated that our oceans would have a Tmean of around -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. This is a serious error, caused by considering the oceans to be a “blackbody” heated at the surface, when in fact our oceans act as a “selective coating” 5km deep over 71% of the planets surface. Our oceans heat slowly from below the surface. The climastrologists figure of -18C is in error by around 98C. (It’s not as bad as it looks, they got the calcs for Lunar regolith out by 90C. What’s another 8C matter when you are that far out?)
Without atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR, our oceans would turn into a giant evaporation constrained solar pond. It should be noted that surface solar flux has the ability to heat translucent materials to 120C or beyond.
With regard to the oceans is is disingenuous to talk of only TSI variance as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles and it is these frequencies that are most relevant in deep energy accumulation in the oceans. UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
I would consider this a plausible mechanism for solar influence on climate, although with some lag. No aliens, or indeed no implication of commenters being crazy enough to suggest aliens are required or warranted.
Magma
Considering so many commenters here got mad at Lewandowsky, why are you providing him with this much new material? Are you trying to kill him with overwork?
If we allow what we discuss to be defined by the likes of Lewandowsky, we have already lost.
Konrad says:
April 6, 2014 at 5:12 pm
With regard to the oceans is is disingenuous to talk of only TSI variance as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles and it is these frequencies that are most relevant in deep energy accumulation in the oceans. UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions. Some of the comments here are just as crazy as ascribing climate disruption to aliens.
lsvalgaard says:
April 6, 2014 at 7:33 pm
“One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions.”
———————————————-
In terms of proportion, I was attempting to illustrate that by indicating the true mechanism by which our oceans heat, slowly and from well below the surface. Climastrologists are looking for radiative forcing in instantaneous radiative flux equations and not at accumulation on longer time-scales.
Further, 10 w/m2 is the strength of UV-A at 50m. It is almost 50 w/m2 near the surface. And that is just one frequency.
I am not claiming UV variance alone is a primary driver of climate fluctuations. It is plausible however that it is one of jack Eddy’s “many plugs”.
I would also note that care should be taken with any discussion of “heat budget”. If it involves the “blackbody” calculations of climastrologists then you can be very sure it’s wrong.
Australian == Zombie
lsvalgaard
Do your research take into account the period of 100 years? Since 100 years we had no such a weak solar cycle. Can you deny that? Solar magnetic field was extremely active in the twentieth century, and suddenly stopped. Can you tell how it will affect the climate?
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg
@ren
No use talking to dr S. He thinks we are men from mars. Note the decrease in ozone from 1951 and subsequent increase from 1995.
Never worry about foreigners buying land. Land does move. If foreigners own it, they have to pay the land tax or the government will take it from them. If foreigners own a lot of land, locals will raise land taxes.
In the 1980s, Japanese interests bought a lot of trophy properties in the US like Rockefeller center and Pebble Beach Golf course. After the Japanese bubble burst in 1989, they were forced to sell all they had bought at knockdown prices.
Never worry about foreigners buying land.
ren says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:24 pm
Do your research take into account the period of 100 years? Since 100 years we had no such a weak solar cycle. Can you deny that?
In fact, I predicted that http://http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Solar magnetic field was extremely active in the twentieth century, and suddenly stopped.
The geomagnetic aa -index is wrongly calibrated and there is no real difference between solar magnetism in any of the three centuries 18th-20th: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-2014-and-the-Sun.pdf
Can you tell how it will affect the climate?
It will not.
As we understand it down under, the unfurling Australian ‘dining boom’ is both a reaction to rising demand for quality agricultural produce in prospering Asia, and a grab for real assets in the face of uncertain financial markets. More people, more demand for land … sorry no cooling required.
Konrad says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Further, 10 w/m2 is the strength of UV-A at 50m. It is almost 50 w/m2 near the surface. And that is just one frequency.
No, not ‘one frequency, but a whole frequency band where almost all the energy of UV is. And 1% of 50 W/m2 is only 0.5 W/m2 which is nothing compared to the rest. The solar cycle variation of TSI is of three times as large [and a part of that is the UV].
I am not claiming UV variance alone is a primary driver of climate fluctuations. It is plausible however that it is one of jack Eddy’s “many plugs”.
At the end of his life Eddy didn’t really believe that the Sun was important. As he said at the Dinner-talk at the 2003 SORCE meeting: “the energy simply isn’t there”. He meant, of course, the cycle-related change in in-coming energy.
I would also note that care should be taken with any discussion of “heat budget”.
Heat budget is simple: something comes in, something goes out. In the long run the two must balance.
lsvalgaard
Is long-term growth of cosmic radiation has an impact on temperature and pressure above the Arctic Circle? You can deny it?
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/~nairas/Dose_Rates.html
lsvalgaard
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
The problem is how much energy actually reaches the Earth’s surface and how it is distributed.
Us compare solar activity at the peak of “weak” Cycle 20 and Cycle 24.
http://www.solen.info/solar/history/hist1969.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
lsvalgaard says:
April 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm
——————————-
“And 1% of 50 W/m2 is only 0.5 W/m2 which is nothing compared to the rest.”
My point is that is that it is the shorter wavelengths that penetrate and heat the oceans. UV can penetrate the oceans and accumulate. Using instantaneous radiative flux equations won’t work for the oceans. They are not a blackbody, they are a selective coating, they store energy. Less than 1 w/m2? No matter, all we are looking for is less than 1 degree in 100 years.
“Heat budget is simple: something comes in, something goes out. In the long run the two must balance.”
Not so simple. Firstly our planet is never in radiative balance. Secondly, satellites read a TOA radiation balance error around 5 times the “CO2 radiative forcing” climastrologists are hoping to find. Thirdly, their blackbody calcs for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling are in error by 98C. What hope is there of calculating a “heat budget” when climastrologists have gotten the physics of ocean heating so incredibly wrong?
Let’s see how the decreased magnetic activity of the Sun.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Ap-Index%20Since199001.gif
You can see that fell from 22 cycle, the trend is evident.
Konrad says
UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
Lief says
(btw is it Lief (a belgian name) or is it Leif (a danish name)_
One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions. Some of the comments here are just as crazy as ascribing climate disruption to aliens.
Henry says
what you have to realize is the formation TOA of ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides which deflect more radiation to space (especially short wave lengths) when there is more of it. Even Trenberth admits this for the ozone, and gave it a substantial figure, but he forgot about the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides.
So what we must measure is UV at sea level, and see how that changes…….because as Konrad says, that is the major ingredient that heats the oceans and therefore provides warmth to earth. TSI (at TOA) is not the proxy that is important.
Henry- I don’t think anyone is disputing one is worse than the other, IF it happens. Indeed if we are entering a LIA, it’s an incredible time to be alive. Moreover, for those of us who like a “Unified Theory” of conspiracies, one dilly of a theory us as follows: The Global Warmer Scientists are secretly Global Coolers, who realized in the 70s that as with other Ice Age cycles, we would enter a short warming period. This was played as “global warming” to better spread their agenda and eventually their control over all natural resources in the Southern Hemisphere. (After all, nobody rich wants a total toxic waste dump, so end their advancement to “First World” status.). Then when the inevitable Ice Age returns, there will be conflict to carve up which countries get what continents and the Great Unwashed, get pushed out or killed. The End. (Also, this article misses who owns what in South America. Monsanto has been trying to buy up land in Uruguay for years, and generally failing. Large tracts of land in Paraguay are owned by the Bush family. Both Paraguay and Uruguay have some of the most temperate weather on the plante and huge aquifers. Looking at where Monsanto is buying would complete my Doom Swoon. Can’t have a decent conspiracy without a Bush, lol. Anyway, my conspiracy fun wraps it all up neatly, doesn’t it? You’re Welcome. 😉
It starts blocking on the southern polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/500gz_anomalies_sh.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_sh_f00.gif
henry@sherry
it seems there are some internet problems
…..my first answer is seemingly lost in space…
Anyway, the point is that I would not buy any land >[40] latitudes
as obviously there are going to be droughts there. It is just a physical reaction: as the temp. differential between the poles an equator increases so will condensation increase at the lower latitudes, leaving less vapor to move to the higher latitudes/
that is assuming that the amount of water vapor in a cooling world is the same, which probably is also not true…
I am not worried that we will fall into an ice age or LIA, because I think men’s ingenuity will save us.
The ice age trap is more about the “snow” trap which deflects energy to space. We could easily use carbon dust (!!!!) to stop that from happening or blast some energy to melt the snow.
What worries me is the coming droughts and the under-utilization of the land around the equator.
In 1933 there was hyper inflation in Germany, mostly due to food shortages, and this brought Hitler to power. What will happen in 2022 (=1933) with so many more people on earth needing food?
Leif,
We can predict an aspect of the earths climate based on solar activity, Solar influence on earth is one of the primary sources being debated. We can observe this when we experience solar minimum, our planet is exposed to less activity including low levels of X-ray and UV, this of course coincides with cooler periods, we can also compare this with observations during solar maximum, coinciding with warm periods, offset slightly, it’s a statisticians dream. It becomes a non event when it becomes politicised. That’s when the underlining science is swept aside.
Don’t get me started on earths orbital timing and orientation within our solar system.